Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biblical exegesis continues to work under the aegis of assumptions that have been associated with it since the late critical period. I identify primary ones: a posture of objectivity toward the biblical text that purports simply to find in the text what is already there and an approach to the text that abstracts it from the real life experience of human persons. Using socio-rhetorical analysis, I show how ideological analysis undercuts the first assumption, that of passivity toward the text and false modesty toward the exegetical process. Using the same analysis, I show how it is possible to re-enflesh the text to overcome the second problem. This re-enfleshment leads me to reflect on ways that socio-rhetorical analysis accords with contemporary scientific explorations of 'complexity, which emerges on the edge of chaos. I conclude with a call to adopt exegetical practices that can exist on and grow with such a complexity and to see the shortcomings of those practices that adopt an artificial truncation of the process, a truncation that can only be understood as 'death'in contrast with 'life'.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".