MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3170474649 · doi:10.82308/13974

Prospection, retrospection, and emotive effect: suspense, surprise, and curiosity in Matthew's Gospel

2011· article· en· W3170474649 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karl McDaniel

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsCuriositySurpriseGospelEmotiveProspectionAestheticsPsychologyArtPhilosophySocial psychologyEpistemologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This examination explores ways in which the narrative of the Gospel of Matthew elicits and develops the emotions of suspense, surprise, and curiosity within its readers. The dream narrative (common in Greek literature) found at the beginning of the Gospel sets up expectation for Jewish salvation (Matt 1:21; 2:6) though this fails to be realized in the narrative given the salvation requirements set forth in Jesus' discourses and parables. This narrative of failure brings about increasing suspense related to the characters in the plot (leaders of the people, crowds, disciples, and Peter). The narrative ends with the commission to the Gentiles (Matt 28:19-20), as a surprise for the reader given the initial expectation of Jewish salvation. This surprise, however, invokes curiosity, calling readers back to the narrative's beginning. Upon rereading with a retrospective view, the reader discovers that the Gentile mission was foreshadowed throughout the narrative via ironic quotations and echoes of Isaiah (Matt 1:23-24; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:18-21; 20:28; 21:33-45; 26:28) that now take on universal interpretation.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→