MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071368647 · doi:10.1177/0142064x07076306

Structure versus Agency in Studies of the Biblical Social World: Engaging with Louise Lawrence

2007· article· en· W2071368647 on OpenAlex
Zeba Crook

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the New Testament · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollectivismIndividualismAgency (philosophy)SociologyMethodological individualismSocial worldsEpistemologyEthnographyGospelEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophySocial scienceAnthropologyTheologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking Louise Lawrence’s ethnographic study of the Gospel of Matthew as a starting point, this article questions whether the structure vs. agency debate in social theory can be settled by proclaiming (or presupposing) one over the other. Indeed, sociological theory has been moving towards recognizing that society, and alongside it culture, must include both. This theoretical question matters for our understanding of the New Testament world. Can we, for instance, assume a single ratio of structure to agency for the ancient and the modern worlds? I suggest that other aspects of a culture should be brought to bear on this question, namely collectivism and individualism. Surely, a collectivistic culture (the biblical world) will operate with a different degree of structure than will an individualistic culture (North America and parts of Europe).

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.343 · 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