MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162144016 · doi:10.1017/9781316275160

The Death of Jesus in Matthew

2017· book· en· W3162144016 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Sider Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismGospelMeaning (existential)Interpretation (philosophy)PhilosophyLiteratureRelation (database)NarrativeTheme (computing)ArtTheologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this book, Catherine Sider Hamilton introduces a new lens through which to view the death of Jesus in Matthew. Using the concept of 'innocent blood', she situates the death of Jesus within a paradigm of purity and pollution, one that was central in the Hebrew Scriptures and early Judaism from the Second Temple to the rabbis. Hamilton traces the theme of innocent blood in Matthew's narrative in relation to two Jewish traditions of interpretation, one (in Second Temple literature) reflecting on the story of Cain and Abel; the other (chiefly in rabbinic literature) on the blood of Zechariah. 'Innocent blood' yields a vision that resists the dichotomies (intra muros vs extra muros, rejection vs redemption) that have characterized the debate, a vision in which both judgment and redemption - an end of exile - may be true. 'Innocent blood' offers a new approach not only to the meaning of Jesus' death in Matthew but also to the vexed question of the Gospel's attitude toward contemporary Judaism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.174 · 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
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

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207