Classification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bold aim of Hud Hudson's remarkable book is to show that, for all we know, an unabashedly literal account of the Christian doctrines of The Fall and Original Sin is entirely compatible with a modern scientific worldview. This reconciliation occurs by means of the Hypertime Hypothesis—more on that later. Hudson begins with a brief historical survey of how these doctrines, along with the doctrine of Original Guilt, have been understood. He then offers a short survey of how evidence from geology, palaeoanthropology, genetics, and evolutionary biology appears to count against them. In ch. 3, Hudson sets out some concessive strategies that have been developed by defenders of these doctrines to make them more palatable to the scientifically informed mind. At its core, Original Sin maintains that some of our ancestors were corrupted in the Fall, and that as a result, it became likely or certain that they would sin—and that this condition has been passed down to all their descendants. Nonliteral interpretations can say that ‘sin’ is really just our tendency to act aggressively and selfishly (which, after all, conferred certain evolutionary advantages). The literal heritability of sin, meanwhile, can be transmuted into the tendency to imitate bad examples. Likewise, The Fall itself can be dehistoricized and mythologized in various ways.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it