MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009028218 · doi:10.1515/zac-2013-0014

The dispositio of the Gospel of Judas

2013· article· en· W2009028218 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Painchaud

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGospelReading (process)Section (typography)ImpressionWork (physics)PhilosophyLiteratureLinguisticsArtComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Upon first reading, the Gospel of Judas gives the impression that it is a work composed by an author who was not greatly concerned with organizational matters. However, when we look more closely at it, we are obliged to rethink this first impression. Patterns in the recurrence of themes and language in the Gospel of Judas show the structural importance of a concentric series of inclusions; when these inclusions are taken into account, we see that the work is organized around two sections, with each section echoing and clarifying the other. This bipartite

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient ChristianitySame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207