MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770259964 · doi:10.1163/15700720-12341316

Consonance and Communal Membership in the Didache

2017· article· en· W2770259964 on OpenAlexaff
Warren Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueVigiliae Christianae · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorahJudaismObedienceArgument (complex analysis)Predicative expressionTheologySociologyPhilosophyReligious studiesLawPolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Didache community reflects a group of Jewish Christ-devotees receiving both Jews and Gentiles into communal membership through the entrance pattern outlined in Did. 1-7. In light of Jewish and Gentile co-membership, the statement concerning Torah obedience in Did. 6:2-3, which promotes full Torah obedience and yet provides room for selective degrees of adherence for Gentile members, is a point of interest. Do the varying degrees of Torah adherence generate dissonance for the Jewish members? How is this apparent equanimity maintained? The argument advanced here is that since the ritual structure for communal entrance reflects conceptual and structural affinities with sectarian induction (1QS) and Rabbinic proselytism (b. Yeb 47a-b), the Jewish audience is able to draw associations between the ritual pattern used for the Didache community and wider Jewish processes for communal entrance. Did. 1-7 is then available as a resource to preserve consonance by providing a holistic association with a Jewish heritage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVigiliae ChristianaeSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207