Bibliographic record
Abstract
The apocryphal infancy gospels (such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protoevangelium of James) seem at first look to be ideal sources for the study of children and childhood in Early Christianity. They all feature depictions of Jesus as an infant and/or a child; some tell similar tales of other eminent Christian figures, such as Mary of Nazareth and John the Baptist. Few of these texts, however, can be considered “early” texts (i.e., 2nd–3rd centuries) and even those we can confidently date to this period are of limited value for the study of children. One text remains useful for this endeavor: the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. And in recent years, several scholars have looked seriously at the gospel for what it can tell us about the experiences of children in antiquity. Yet, even this text must be approached with caution for it has more to say about how adults of the time wanted children to be than what they truly were. Les évangiles de l’enfance apocryphes (comme l’Évangile de l’enfance selon Thomas et le Protévangile de Jacques) semblent à première vue comme des sources idéales pour l’étude des enfants et l’enfance au début du christianisme. Ils ont tous des représentations de Jésus comme un bébé et / ou un enfant, certains racontent des histoires similaires des autres éminentes figures chrétiennes, comme Marie de Nazareth et Jean le Baptiste. Peu de ces textes, cependant, peuvent être considérés tôt (par exemple, 2–3e siècles) et même ceux que nous pouvons en toute confiance dater à cette période sont d’une valeur limitée pour l’étude des enfants. Un texte reste utile pour cette tâche : l’Évangile de l’enfance selon Thomas. Et ces dernières années, plusieurs chercheurs se sont penchés sérieusement sur l’évangile pour ce qu’il peut nous dire au sujet des expériences des enfants dans l’antiquité. Pourtant, même ce texte doit être abordé avec prudence car il a plus à dire sur les attentes des adultes de l’époque aux enfants que ce qu’ils étaient vraiment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".