MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169539092 · doi:10.1177/0142064x05052509

A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire

2005· article· en· W2169539092 on OpenAlexaff
Harry O. Maier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the New Testament · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireEmperorCivilityRoman EmpireCultGeopoliticsPhilosophyConceptualizationIndigenousEtymologyHistoryLiteratureClassicsTheologyLawAncient historyArtLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article relates Colossian vocabulary, motifs and theological themes to the cultural situation of the cult of the emperor. The author’s language and conceptualization of reconciliation as a cosmic and earthly peace (Col.1.15-23) reflects an imperial backdrop and utilizes civic vocabulary typical of Greek and Roman treatments of concord. His representation of Jesus’ death as a Roman triumph (2.15), and the incorporation of all humankind—including barbarians and Scythians—in a trans-ethnic unity (3.11) similarly reflects the geopolitical notions of a worldwide Roman Empire. The imperial imprint on the Household Code (3.18-4.1) is recognizable through attention to numismatic representations of Nero and his consort enjoying a divinely appointed familial concord. Though used by court theologians like Eusebius of Caesarea to legitimate a Christian application of Empire, the letter may be read as a destabilization of Empire inasmuch as it derives imperial-sounding ideals from the crucifixion of Jesus.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.045
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of the New TestamentSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207