MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033883182 · doi:10.1017/s0028688503000134

Reciprocity and ‘Favour’ in the Parable of the Undeserving Servant (Luke 17.7–10)

2003· article· en· W2033883182 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Knowles

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Testament Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Divinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServantJudaismReciprocity (cultural anthropology)HeavenParallelsMeaning (existential)PhilosophyTheologySociologyEpistemologyEconomicsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At least for Jewish audiences, the meaning of the parable of the undeserving servant (Luke 17.7–10) is clear enough: slaves can claim no credit for doing what they have been ‘commanded’ (the redoubled τα διαταχθεντα of vv. 9–10). Both the passive voice and parallels from Jewish literature indicate that ‘Master’ and ‘slave’ are ciphers for God and the pious. Mishnah 'Abot 1.3, for example, is widely cited: ‘Do not be like slaves who serve the Master for the sake of reward, but be as slaves who serve the Master other than for reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.’ J. D. M. Derrett has adduced a wealth of material documenting master–slave relations in Judaism as they relate to the circumstances depicted in the text.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.022
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 venueNew Testament StudiesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207