MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003744212 · doi:10.3390/rel11020068

Women in Luther’s Life and Theology: Scholarship in Recent Years

2020· article· en· W3003744212 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Kathryn Jurgens

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipProtestantismMartin lutherPerspective (graphical)SociologyFeminist theologyHuman sexualityTheologyGender studiesReligious studiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to provide a broad but comprehensive review of the current scholarship on Martin Luther and women. Luther’s thoughts and actions still play an important role as witnessed by the recent events commemorating the five-hundredth anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. However, after five-hundred years, it is surprising that there continues to be relatively little scholarship on Luther’s ideas about women, especially from a feminist perspective. Luther wrote much about women and related topics such as marriage, sexuality, and the family which can be found throughout nearly every type of his works. For example, Luther not only wrote extensively about women throughout his theological works, but also wrote personal correspondence to women. Yet, Luther’s theological attitudes towards women and his encounters with women need to be explored further. This review is significant because it highlights the major scholarly works that address Luther and women. This review not only provides a helpful framework for the readers of this Special Issue of Religions, but it also emphasizes the necessity for future scholarship to continue to explore Martin Luther’s complex relationship with women in his life and theology.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligionsSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207