The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark, Laura C. SweatExperiencing Irony in the First Gospel: Suspense, Surprise, and Curiosity, Karl McDaniel : book reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dare one be envious? A cardinal sin, indeed! And yet it is difficult not to be jealous or, perhaps to be unduly generous to oneself, humbled by these eloquent works. Both are Ph.D. theses: the former, at Princeton; the latter, at McGill. Certainly in McDaniel's case, this book replicates his dissertation. And it is this fact that arouses one's jealousy or engenders one's humility, because, all too often, theses at this level display an impenetrability and a surfeit of convoluted academic jargon, which, usually, is not discouraged. In the Humanities, in the theological disciplines, rather than argue discursively and with an elegance that demonstrates the simplicity of a profound knowledge of the material in their purview, students are encouraged to emulate the sciences. Arguments are presented in the form of mathematical equations; their conclusions stated with a peremptory, and seemingly incontrovertible, logic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".