MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248153713 · doi:10.2979/jfemistudreli.33.2.20

She Is

2017· article· en· W4248153713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elisabeth Mehl Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Feminist Studies in Religion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

She Is Elisabeth Mehl Greene (bio) "She Is" celebrates the heroic spirit of women in early Islam, observing the challenges within their stories as well as in the traditional representation of those narratives. These women of the Islamic tradition display courage, perseverance, and resilience, deserving honor that is often denied them. soft focus cat of nine quilted cushion sewn with loopholes a lost necklace, caravan, trust live wire blossoming blue firetalent scout and strong coffee sand storm against antique ceramics falcon's eye for perfect accountingsea voyage solo tall sail inkless lion committed to memory jeweled orchid full of flour unpinned swirl, unseated singular taleswindswept tent revealed in sun ransomed rose, wings and myth falling moon of buttered dates firm carpet roller for onebarred name blessing of oud between the mules and garments deal refuser, unwilling to move [End Page 178] Elisabeth Mehl Greene Elisabeth Mehl Greene is a writer and composer working in the Washington, DC, area. She is a visiting researcher at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Greene received her doctorate from the University of Maryland. Her first book, Lady Midrash: Poems Reclaiming the Voices of Biblical Women (2016), retells the stories of women from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament from their own perspectives. emg99@georgetown.edu Copyright © 2017 Canadian Comparative Literature Association

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.500
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 teacher head, 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Feminist Studies in ReligionSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207