MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988895570 · doi:10.1177/000842980803700204

Cynics or Luddites? Excavating Q Studies

2008· article· en· W1988895570 on OpenAlexaffvenue
A. J. Droge

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGospelIdeologyMythologyDisciplineField (mathematics)HistorySociologyPolitical economyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawClassicsArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last 20 years the Sayings Gospel "Q" has come to play an increasingly important role in the reconstruction of Christian origins. One might argue in fact that the field has reached a tipping point: the canonical myth of Christian origins—running along the traditional axis of Mark, Paul, and Luke-Acts—is now on the verge of collapse. Q has thus become a crucial site of conflict and contestation in the struggle over origins, and as such "Q studies" is particularly revealing of the ideological investments of professionals on both sides of the fight. This article tries to identify some of the stakes involved in this disciplinary crisis, and worries that the new counter-history of Christian origins has not entirely divested itself of the commitments of its more conservative adversaries.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.079 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207