MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186842401 · doi:10.1163/15700720-bja10018

Modelling a Christian Academy: Christ, Disciples, and Biblical Scholarship in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew

2021· article· en· W3186842401 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Solheid

Bibliographic record

VenueVigiliae Christianae · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Linguistic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGospelScholarshipPluralBiblical studiesUnderpinningInterpretation (philosophy)PhilosophyTheologyLiteratureArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper addresses evidence in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew of the Alexandrian’s self-understanding of his scholastic practices. Drawing on Origen’s interpretation of the parables in the Gospel, I argue that Origen exploits the motif of Jesus explaining the parables to his disciples as a model for his own school enterprise in Caesarea. In light of this observation, I will begin by examining the echoes of the classroom environment found in Origen’s Matthew Commentary building on the work of Guido Bendinelli and Lorenzo Perrone. Paying particular attention to stylistic features, such as the use of the first-person plural, I will map the classroom dynamic in the making of the commentary. Then, I will focus on Origen’s hermeneutical approach to Jesus’ parables, especially the distinction he draws between Jesus engagement with the “crowds” and his private teaching to the disciples. Underpinning the Matthew Commentary was Origen’s attempt to model his school against the conceptual backdrop of the Jesus-disciple dynamic and the Greco-Roman philosophical school tradition.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVigiliae ChristianaeSame topicHistorical and Linguistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207