MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173589744 · doi:10.1093/jts/flaa098

Onesimus the Letter Carrier and the Initial Reception of Paul’s Letter to Philemon

2020· article· en· W3173589744 on OpenAlex
Peter M. Head

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

VenueThe Journal of Theological Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityConversationIdentification (biology)PhilosophyComputer sciencePsychologyPsychoanalysisLinguisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract After an introduction to the letter to Philemon this article argues that the traditional identification of Onesimus as the letter carrier is far more plausible than any of the recently proposed alternatives (Tychicus, Timothy, an unknown person). It is further argued that the letter addresses the relationships between Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus, using language reminiscent of the ‘letter of recommendation’. Since such letters are both habitually ambiguous and require the letter carrier to continue the conversation initiated by the letter, it follows that Onesimus was trusted by Paul to help Philemon receive the letter. It is further argued on both general and Pauline grounds that it is plausible to think that Onesimus would have resolved the ambiguity inherent in the written communication with a verbal request for manumission.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.190 · 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