MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061207414 · doi:10.1353/earl.2011.0048

How to Teach Genesis 1.1-19: John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea on the Creation of the World

2011· article· en· W2061207414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Isabella Sandwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of early Christian studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExegesisJohn ChrysostomOrder (exchange)Quarter (Canadian coin)LiteraturePhilosophyLiteral (mathematical logic)TheologyClassicsArtHistoryLinguisticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea both preached on Gen 1.1-19 to similar audiences in the last quarter of the fourth century C.E. Both were followers of Nicaea and both claimed to carry out literal forms of exegesis and yet Chrysostom's pastoral and moral concerns and Basil's interest in science and philosophy meant that their preaching on the early books of Genesis was radically different. This article will explore the differences between the two in order to assess which would have been more successful at teaching the newly created world and thus at bringing about audience understanding of the difficult text of Genesis. It will use ideas drawn from cognitive psychology to define what counts as understanding and good teaching in order to provide a new approach for making such assessments of ancient preachers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of early Christian studiesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207