MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999500793 · doi:10.3138/tjt.19.2.173

Jesus as Messiah in Galatians and Romans: A Response to John Gager's <i>Reinventing Paul</i>

2003· article· en· W1999500793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMessiahJudaismScholarshipPerspective (graphical)Variety (cybernetics)PhilosophyClassicsFocus (optics)SociologyJewish studiesEpistemologyTheologyLawHistoryArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John Gager's recent book, Reinventing Paul, represents a major contribution to what is often referred to as the "new perspective" on Paul. The scholars associated with this important and influential school of thought in Pauline studies, though they may disagree widely on a variety of points, all argue for an understanding of Paul which critiques traditional and long-standing assumptions about his anti-Judaism. The main focus of much of their work, as of Gager's, is Paul's attitude toward Judaic Law and the Jewish people. Gager provides an extremely accessible and thorough critical overview of recent scholarship on these issues as the prolegomena to his own arguments, particularly with reference to Paul's letters to the Galatians and to the Romans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.034
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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