MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165163680 · doi:10.1017/s0022046906008918

Was the <i>Tomus ad Antiochenos</i> a Pacific Document?

2007· article· en· W2165163680 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Ecclesiastical History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitSynodInterpretation (philosophy)PoliticsHistoryClassicssortAncient historyPhilosophyGenealogyTheologyLawPolitical scienceGeographyCartographyLinguisticsArithmeticMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tomus ad Antiochenos is still thought to represent Athanasius at the summit of his career, generously trying to make peace between two groups of Catholics in Antioch. However, in the light of the resurrected Epistula catholica of the Synod at Alexandria in 362, another interpretation is more likely – namely, that the Tomus is another piece of ecclesiastical politics of the sort attacked by Edward Schwartz a century ago. This interpretation suits the end of Athanasius’ career much better than the older view.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Ecclesiastical HistorySame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207