MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964141115 · doi:10.1177/00084298090380030201

The cultic milieu, Nag Hammadi collectors and gnosticism

2009· article· fr· W1964141115 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGnosticismCultGensHumanitiesEthnologyWorshipPhilosophySociologyArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I address the question of the applicability of sociological church/sect/cult typologies to the study of gnosticism, arguing that at least in the case of the Nag Hammadi collection, such typologies are unable to adequately deal with the evidence that we possess. Instead, I will show that Colin Campbell’s idea of a “cultic milieu,” a sort of esoteric underworld from which cult movements and sects arise, is a more helpful model for understanding those responsible for compiling the Nag Hammadi material. Dans ce qui suit, je suggére que les typologies sociologiques religieuses (église/culte/secte) ne sont pas adéquates à illuminer les sources primaires gnostiques que nous possédons, comme celles de Nag Hammadi. Il me semble, par contre, que le concept — développé par le sociologue Colin Campbell — d’un « cultic milieu », est beaucoup plus utile pour notre compréhension des gens qui ont ramassé les textes de Nag Hammadi.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.261 · 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