MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419348741 · doi:10.1163/9789004215122_017

Revisiting the Ichthys: A Suggestion Concerning the Origins of Christological Fish Symbolism

2012· book-chapter· en· W2419348741 on OpenAlexaff
Tuomas Rasimus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbol (formal)Fish <Actinopterygii>Extant taxonEarly ChristianityMeaning (existential)New TestamentLiteratureJudaismOld TestamentPhilosophyBiblical studiesArtEpistemologyTheologyBiologyLinguisticsEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The symbol of Christ as a fish first appears in the extant Christian literature and material culture in the second half of the second century. The Christological fish symbol itself is well attested by the end of the second century, and becomes extremely popular in the course of the third and fourth centuries, involving a complex network of meanings. This chapter suggests a new solution to the origins and meaning of the early Christian fish symbolism. After discussing the main sources and previous solutions proposed, it attempts to show how one specific invention may have acted as an important catalyst in the early development of the symbolism. This then led to a veritable explosion in the use of the image in early Christianity, allowing for the huge potential, present in pagan, Jewish and New Testament stories and traditions about fish, to be exploited. Keywords:early Christian fish symbolism; Jewish stories; New Testament

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.016
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207