Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our societal obsession with hair and how it looks seems to know no bounds. Consumers are bombarded with innovative advertisements telling us that our hair is always in need of a miraculous product that can change our lives forever. Contrastingly, sensationalized media reports, which accomplish little else than instilling fear of the “Other,” have no shortage of images of presumably oppressed and unhappy Muslim women, who are almost always veiled in a chador, burqa, or even simply the hijab. Often seen as the most poignant characteristic of the Islamic civilization, the veil is consistently portrayed as a symbol of repression, patriarchal tyranny, barbarism, and even anti-western sentiment (Heath 2008, 18). However, veiling also has a crucial place in the main religious tradition of the Western world, Christianity. In this article, I argue that early Christian women often understood this practice as indicating modesty and respectability. For many Christians, women’s veiling was an important part of their religious identity and moral values. As modesty was the dominant justification for women’s veiling in the Greek and Roman worlds, Christians who observed and promoted the veil were building on the values and practices of their cultural environment. Eventually, however, the Christian veil was reserved for consecrated virgins, and the Latin Church fathers wrote copiously to instill its observance. This article will examine the practice of veiling in antiquity, beginning with Greco-Roman cultural norms, followed by Paul’s instructions to Corinthian women, and concluding with Ambrose of Milan’s treatment of the subject in relation to consecrated virgins. This trajectory will demonstrate that the practice of veiling evolved these three periods; however, its core purpose of safeguarding modesty, remained embedded during each of them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
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".