Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on salvation in the Luke 19:1-10 Zacchaean story generally tend to exhibit an underdeveloped analysis of its rhetoric as part of the controversy genre. This paucity reduces salvation to an individual event and ignores the social effect of Lukan salvation in the story. To remedy this, it is here argued that the weight of the controversy genre is felt specifically in the rhetorical use of enthymeme in verse 9, and that Jesus’s enthymemic pronouncement of salvation reveals a social aspect to Zacchaeus’s salvation. The enthymeme supports Zacchaeus’s refutation of the crowd’s position; it insinuates and infers from contrariety and obligates the crowd to distribute honour to Zacchaeus. This function of enthymeme is based on the evidence of first-century rhetors, whose position differs from modern scholarship’s view of the enthymeme as a truncated logical syllogism. Salvation has a social effect. Jesus’s enthymemic pronouncement crowns Zacchaeus’s refutation by calling the crowd to reinterpret Zacchaeus’s social-religious status on the basis of legal precedent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".