MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044660689 · doi:10.1177/0014524612444239

‘To Fall Short’ or ‘To Lack’? Reconsidering the Meaning and Translation of ‘ΥΣΤΕΡΕΩ in Romans 3:23

2012· article· en· W2044660689 on OpenAlexaff
Wally V. Cirafesi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Expository Times · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Linguistic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Divinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbLinguisticsRendering (computer graphics)New TestamentFall of manLiteraturePhilosophyMeaning (existential)Translation (biology)HistoryTheologyComputer scienceEpistemologyArtPoliticsArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article challenges the common English translation of ὑτεροῦνται in Rom. 3:23 as ‘to fall/come short’, and suggests that this rendering is due to the over-influence of the 1611 King James Version. In the light of the verb’s sense and grammatical relations with other words found in Romans, as well as its typical usage in Paul and the New Testament in general, the article contends that ‘to lack’ is a more helpful translation.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.023
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Expository TimesSame topicHistorical and Linguistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207