MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034349276 · doi:10.1017/s0022046902284791

<i>Concordance des textes de Nag Hammadi. Les codices X et XIA.</i> By Wolf-Peter Funk. (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Concordances, 6.) Pp. xxxvii+350. Québec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval/Louvain–Paris: Éditions Peeters, 2000. B.Fr. 2,500. 2 7637 7706 6; 90 429 0844 0; 2 87723 485 1

2002· article· fr· W2034349276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. McL. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Ecclesiastical History · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunkArtHumanitiesArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concordance des textes de Nag Hammadi. Les codices X et XIA. By Wolf-Peter Funk. (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Concordances, 6.) Pp. xxxvii+350. Québec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval/Louvain–Paris: Éditions Peeters, 2000. B.Fr. 2,500. 2 7637 7706 6; 90 429 0844 0; 2 87723 485 1 - Volume 53 Issue 4

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1390.064

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Ecclesiastical HistorySame topicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207