MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997920807 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.2017-0064

The Blair Martyr Project: The <i>Passion of Perpetua</i> and Found Footage Horror

2019· article· en· W2997920807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sheldon Steen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNarrative Theory and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionMartyrLiteratureArtHistoricity (philosophy)HistoryVisual artsAestheticsPsychologyLawArchaeologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholarly conversations about the Passion of Perpetua have often centred not only on the historicity of the events described, but also on the authenticity of its claim that certain sections were written by the hand of Perpetua herself in her personal diary or journal. This has led some scholars to seek to adjudicate which sections of the account should be considered “authentic” and which are the work of a later editor(s). I propose instead to read the Passion of Perpetua through the lens of found footage, a sub-genre of horror films popularized by the release of the 1999 film The Blair Witch Project. While found footage as a genre is obviously a modern invention for a different medium, it nonetheless offers a helpful heuristic for understanding the function of the Passion of Perpetua. While the author(s) of this ancient text was certainly unaware of modern movie-making conventions, the text nonetheless bears striking and important affinities with found footage horror both in its conceits and its intended effect.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicNarrative Theory and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207