MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006626050 · doi:10.1163/157007208x389875

Joseph as a Model for Faunus-Hermes: Myth, History, and Fiction in the Fourth Century

2009· article· en· W2006626050 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Garstad

Bibliographic record

VenueVigiliae Christianae · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)NarrativeWorshipLiteratureMythologyHEROPhilosophyJudaismClassicsHistoryTheologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Faunus-who-is-also-Hermes is one of the composite god-kings dealt with in the polemical Christian 'Picus-Zeus narrative' of the fourth century. The narrative of his life is based on the Biblical account of Joseph, along with the elaborations on Joseph's life in Hellenistic Jewish fiction. Whereas Joseph is a virtuous hero, however, Faunus-Hermes is a villain who practices sorcery and usurpation and ultimately induces men to worship him as a god. The Hellenistic novels and especially the philosophical considerations of Philo of Alexandria accentuate the ambiguities in Joseph which might allow a bad character to be developed out of his good character. The Clementine Recognitions, moreover, offer an understanding of history and human character according to which good and evil come in contrasting and inimical pairs. Altogether, the use of Joseph as a model for Faunus-Hermes allows the author to subtly introduce a moral message in what seems to be a blunt and unadorned history.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVigiliae ChristianaeSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207