Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews La Bible Expliquee(the Explained Bible) published in 2004 by the French Bible Society, presents the commentaries of this Bible, and analyzes its pros and cons. To achieve this aim, we will use the following processes. First, by considering the foreword of La Bible Expliquee, we will try to grasp its purpose and orientation with its theological features. Second, in order to understand the theological position of this Bible, we will compare it with ZeBible published in 2011 by the same bible society. La Bible Expliquee is an international and interdenominational Bible in that the French Bible Society and the Canadian Bible Society have cooperated, and that Protestants, Catholics, and Evangelicals have worked together. This explication Bible tries to give the explanation of the difficult passages in the Bible to the readers with little theological education. That is why this Bible uses easy and evident terms that all can read and understand. Its commentaries do not arouse thorny theological controversies. When certain biblical passages conflict with present ideas, La Bible Expliquee tends to explain them positively by emphasizing their historical contexts and vindicating the Bible’s qualification as a canon. In this regard, we can evaluate that this Bible is more moderate and conservative than ZeBible. La Bible Expliquee was made in order to overcome the limits of the preceding study bibles. While the Life Application Study Bible is fundamentalistic and La Bible des Communautes Chretiennes has much anti-semitic tendencies, La Bible Expliquee seeks to avoid dogmatic and spiritual interpretations, and takes out the theological meanings in the light of the Holy Spirit. The reader who wants to get biblical answers to real-life problems may be helped by ZeBible. There is a deep gap between the Bible written in the ancient times and the present Bible readers in the aspects of time, geography, language, and ideas, therefore requiring the Bible to be explained. However it is impossible to make a perfect and unique explication Bible because the readers are situated in different contexts from one another. Hence, diverse explication Bibles are needed for various objectives and directions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".