Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".