MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2865263030 · doi:10.1163/15700682-12341451

Why I am Such a Good Christian: Comments on Gil Anidjar, Blood: A Critique of Christianity

2018· article· en· W2865263030 on OpenAlex
Francis Landy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethod & Theory in the Study of Religion · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristianityMonotheismJudaismProtestantismPhilosophyAmbivalenceConfession (law)Interpretation (philosophy)KinshipTheologyReligious studiesPsychoanalysisSociologyHistoryIslamAnthropologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gil Anidjar begins his immensely ambitious book Blood with a strange statement/question “Why I am Such a Good Christian.” I begin by examining this question for its implications for cultural hybridity, for myself as well as for Anidjar, through the lens of Anidjar’s concluding discussion of Freud’s Moses and Monotheism . On the way I critically explore Anidjar’s insistence that blood is not a signifier of kinship or ancestry in the Hebrew Bible or in Judaism, and argue that both are in fact much more complex. I suggest also that Christianity has other elements than blood, such as the bread of the Eucharist, and that Anidjar devotes little attention to the differences between Protestant and Catholic Christianity. I conclude by reverting to Freud’s account of an experience of innocence in The Interpretation of Dreams , as indicative of Freud’s ambivalent position between Judaism and Christianity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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