Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".