MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906772320 · doi:10.1177/0008429815599803

Jesus’ Resurrection as a Saturated Phenomenon?

2015· article· en· W1906772320 on OpenAlex
Don Schweitzer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicViolence, Religion, and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonAssertionNew TestamentPhilosophyMeaning (existential)ConstitutionObjectificationEpistemologyPower (physics)TheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines Jean-Luc Marion’s notion of a saturated phenomenon and assesses some of its strengths and weaknesses as a way of understanding Jesus’ resurrection. It argues that Marion’s notion is very helpful for understanding the uniqueness and decisiveness of Jesus’ resurrection, its resistance to objectification, its transformative power and its excess of meaning. However, Marion’s assertion that a person is completely passive in receiving a saturated phenomenon does not fit with the way Jesus’ resurrection is described in the New Testament. This paper offers a correction to Marion’s notion on this point, arguing that people do have the freedom to play an active role in their reception of Jesus’ resurrection and in their constitution by it, a freedom founded by Jesus’ resurrection itself.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it