MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3142911006 · doi:10.1017/9781108913980.005

The Trial of Scripture

2021· book-chapter· en· W3142911006 on OpenAlexaff
Travis DeCook

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPower (physics)ScholarshipEPICPoetryPhilosophyLiteratureParadise lostLanguage changeTheologyAgency (philosophy)HistoryArtLawPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter considers how the theological treatise De Doctrina Christiana , attributed to John Milton, portrays the Bible’s textual history in such a way as to underwrite the political agency of the Holy Spirit-filled Christian. In this work, which directly confronts the putatively corrosive findings of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century historical scholarship on the biblical text, Milton argues in strikingly unequivocal terms that the biblical text is utterly defenseless to corruption and loss in its passage through history. Paradoxically, however, he argues that this condition of total vulnerability to contingency is providentially ordained, and that it has the effect of emphasizing the preeminence of the Holy Spirit within the individual Christian over the external text. I contend that the challenges for the Christian presented by the corruption and loss of the sacred texts in Milton’s account correspond with his theological politics centered on the struggles and ultimate authority of the Spirit-guided, individual believer encountering the fallen world. This politics is given voice in his tracts Areopagitica and Of Civil Power , and most famously in his epic poem Paradise Lost .

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→