MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341916780 · doi:10.6017/eurj.v6i1.9023

Illuminating a Culture, a History, a Tradition: Conceptual Blending in the St. John's Bible

2010· article· en· W2341916780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erin E. Eighan

Bibliographic record

VenueElements · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostmodernismGospelLiteratureFifteenthConceptual blendingArtifact (error)ArtCognitionHistoryArt historySociologyAestheticsClassicsComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998, St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota commissioned Donald Jackson to produce one of the first hand-written, hand-illuminated Bibles since the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century. The on-going project bridges disparate traditions in a unique blend of the medieval and postmodern eras. This article adopts cognitive literary theory to examine the St. John's Bible, specifically the frontispiece to the Gospel of John, and the text-image interaction contained within as products of conceptual blending. A cognitive historical approach to the St. John's Bible reveals the complicated relationship of the modern-day audience to the illuminated text. Tensions are inevitable within any cognitive blend; the same applies to the reader-viewer's experience of text-image integration here. The key to cognitive blending is the emergent experience of the target element. In this case, the postmodern Bible as target blends with its medieval predecessors to produce the St. John's Bible-an intersubjective, multimodal, cross-generational artifact of a cognitive blend.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.047
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.261
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

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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementsSame topicMedia, Religion, Digital CommunicationFrench-language works237,207