MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002126251 · doi:10.1163/15700720-12341202

Moses, Statesman and Philosopher: The Philosophical Background of the Ideal of Assimilating to God and the Methodology of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis 1

2015· article· en· W2002126251 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Gibbons

Bibliographic record

VenueVigiliae Christianae · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStoicismPhilosophyIdeal (ethics)PaideiaStyle (visual arts)Church FathersPortraitContemplationBiblical studiesHebrew BibleCiceroUnificationEclecticismPeriod (music)EpistemologyLiteratureTheologyArt historyHistoryAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clement’s so-called ‘eclectic’ style has long been noted by his modern readers, with several suggesting that this approach reflects his idea of Mosaic philosophy as having been scattered among the different philosophical traditions of his period. Here, I wish to argue that in his portrait of Moses in Strom. 1, Clement draws on Platonic and Stoic sources to provide a coherent picture of what it is to assimilate to God as a unification of the civic and contemplative lives. In doing so, Clement exploits actual historical connections between the two schools in using Stoicism as a hermeneutical lens through which to unify Plato’s dialogues, which themselves offer conflicting interpretations of the relationship between the statesman and the philosopher. This study also hopes to illuminate the ways in which conceptualizations of Judaism at times informed and controlled early Christian constructions of their relationship with pagan culture.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.045
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVigiliae ChristianaeSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207