MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997697546 · doi:10.3138/tjt.16.1.109

Re-Reading Resurrection

2000· article· en· W1997697546 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mary Rose D’Angelo

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristologyConversationHumanityReading (process)PhilosophyTheologyLiteratureSociologyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The word resurrection and its explanation remain as much an object of debate for Christians at the turn of the twenty-first century as they were for Mark's disciples. In recent years, many theologians and scholars have produced fruitful and significant interpretations of the early Christian testimonies to Jesus' resurrection. John Dominic Crossan, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Roger Haight have all broached the topic in ways that have stirred debate and reassessment. Their work has inspired some of the questions that guide this feminist re-reading of the early Christian texts that undergird Christian confessions about the fate of Jesus and humanity. What I have learned from Ellen Leonard about Christology and about experience as a source of theology have been a primary source for the reflections I offer here. Our ongoing conversation has been the most important matrix of this article, as for much else.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207