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 OpenAlexaff
Jin Hwan Lee

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.064
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

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
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early Christian HistorySame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207