MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144965603

Augustine vs. Archisynagogus: Competing Modes of Christian Instruction in the Benediktbeuern Ludus de nativitate

2006· article· en· W2144965603 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAugustinian Studies and Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeal (ethics)EnlightenmentDramaChristian traditionFaithJudaismChristian faithAestheticsPhilosophyFocus (optics)EpistemologyLiteratureTheologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article situates the Archisynagogus episode of the Benediktbeuern Ludus de nativitate within the tradition of medieval Christian-Jewish debate literature. This genre typically presents doctrinal instruction through the confrontation of two perspectives and the ultimate refutation of Jewish arguments, yet, in the Christmas Play, the medium of debate is itself rejected along with all rational approaches to understanding Christian mystery. As part of its anti-scholastic focus, the play instead promotes an Augustinian concept of inspired learning where belief and visual res (looking on in faith) are the proper approaches to enlightenment rather than logical arguments. In this, the Ludus ultimately privileges the viewing of religious drama as the ideal means of attaining Christian truth.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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