MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035613578 · doi:10.1163/156851508x383386

The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence in Fantasies of the End Times

2009· article· en· W2035613578 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly B. Stratton

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblical Interpretation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionSpectacleSubject (documents)Retributive justiceVisionBiblical studiesPower (physics)VoyeurismAestheticsPhilosophySociologyEconomic JusticeLiteratureTheologyLawArtPsychoanalysisPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Eschatological fantasies of divine judgment and retribution constitute a common feature of sacred literature and often serve to legitimate violence, both physical and rhetorical, against others. This paper examines allusions to Roman spectacles of violence—which operated part and parcel of imperialist strategies to dominate and intimidate subject populations—in descriptions of final judgment. It argues that these references constitute forms of colonial mimicry, which ambivalently appropriate Roman symbols of power for their own self fashioning. This process, however, is not uniform, but serves different purposes and strategies in different texts and contexts. This article explores examples of such mimicry and asks what it means for visions of the final judgment to reinscribe the very methods of domination that these fantasies seek to displace. Additionally, it considers the role of voyeurism implicit in public disciplinary displays and the implications that imagining eschatological justice as a blood spectacle has for theological conceptions of divine surveillance and control.

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)0.009
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.069
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblical InterpretationSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207