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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1Helen Pringle, review of Marian Maddox's God Under Howard, Australian Journal of Political Science 40(3). 2 God Under Howard, 313–15. 3 God Under Howard, 312. 4Robert Audi, Religious Commitment and Secular Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 5On this point see, for example, Gérard Vallée, A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius, Studies in Christianity and Judaism (Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press), 92; and Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 24. 6Hans Jonas, ‘Delimitation of the Gnostic Phenomenon: Typological and Historical’, in The Origins of Gnosticism, Colloquium of Messina, 13–18 April, 1966, ed. Ugo Bianchi (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 96. 7Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 52–3. 8King, What is Gnosticism?, 123. 9Ray Evans, ‘Gnosticism and the High Court’, Quadrant 43(6) (1999): 20–6. 10John Locke, Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Ian Shapiro (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 216–17. 11218. 12218–22.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it