MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning to Read the Bible with Desire: Teaching the Eros of Exegesis in the Theological Classroom

2007· article· en· W1996315420 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueTeaching Theology & Religion · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTheological Perspectives and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExegesisReading (process)ConversationPoetryPhilosophyLiteratureTheologySociologyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The article begins with two brief theoretical descriptions of a pedagogy of desire vis‐à‐vis the Christian Bible. The first of these is a poem; the second summarizes the conversation constituted by four quite different books: the Confessions by Augustine of Hippo, Freud & Philosophy by Paul Ricoeur, Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, and The Ethnography of Reading edited by Jonathan Boyarin. There follows, then, a case in point: an account of my most recent effort to teach the eros of exegesis at Emmanuel College (Toronto), using the Song of Songs . This account includes discussion of the (pre)conception(s) of the (biblical) text that inform(s) this undertaking and of the practice of communal reading as a specific type of bodily activity and social experience. In conclusion, the question of evaluation is addressed. How does one learn to love – when, by, in, with, and under – reading the Bible?

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.317 · 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