MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165165029 · doi:10.1080/2222582x.2021.1879661

Reading 1 Cor 11:19 in Light of Election Practices in Private Associations

2020· article· en· W3165165029 on OpenAlex
Jin Hwan Lee

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

VenueJournal of Early Christian History · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)ChemistryLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1 Cor 11:19, Paul talks about hoi dokimoi faneroi (“the distinctively approved ones”) among the Christ group in Corinth. Paul mentions these people in a context in which he criticises factions and divisions in the group. The verse itself is not enough to understand what the group practiced in advance to have such approved members, nor are we aware of how the group proceeded with the practice and what the prerequisites were. This article attempts to answer these crucial questions by examining association data from ancient Greece regarding election procedures to understand 1 Cor 11:19 within its particular social context, and the Christ group in Corinth in general.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.195 · 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