MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101479306

Subversion and Sexual Violence: A Reading of the Roman System of Punishment and Entertainment in the Hypostasis of the Archons

2015· article· en· W2101479306 on OpenAlexaff
E. Meaghan Matheson

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposia: The Journal of Religion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubversionTrope (literature)EntertainmentNarrativeReading (process)Punishment (psychology)Theme (computing)Sexual violenceConversationLiteraturePoliticsVampireSociologyPsychoanalysisPsychologyAestheticsArtCriminologyPhilosophySocial psychologyLawCommunicationVisual artsLinguisticsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual violence is a vivid trope employed in the Nag Hammadi text the Hypostasis of the Archons .  The three female agents within this retelling of the Genesis creation narrative, namely the female spiritual principle, Eve, and Norea, are repeatedly pursued by sexual assaults from the archons. This paper looks to offer a reading of this theme of sexual violence in the text by placing it in conversation with the larger Roman culture that dominated its social world.  In doing so, this paper argues that the Hypostasis of the Archons is drawing on the Roman system of punishment and entertainment to create a farce of its textual archons, and by extension all worldly rulers; sexual violence in this text is used to create a social and theological commentary on ancient political powers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.027
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposia: The Journal of ReligionSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207