MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327941332 · doi:10.1558/rst.24834

Denying a God of Mercy

2023· article· en· W4327941332 on OpenAlexaff
Rob Wiznura

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies and Theology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTheological Perspectives and Practices
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotif (music)MasculinityFraming (construction)NarrativeAestheticsCompassionPhilosophyEpistemologySociologyLiteraturePsychoanalysisPsychologyTheologyArtHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay concerns itself with notions of masculinity in John Milton’s Samson Agonistes. Essentially, the essay argues that the violence in the play is a direct result of concepts of masculinity and the projection of those concepts onto God. The characters in the play repeatedly fail to recognize a God of compassion or mercy, preferring to remain within their notions of a voluntarist, vindictive, vengeful, and violent God. The argument considers the relationship of the play with the Book of Judges before shifting its focus to the Chorus, particularly their activity in framing and controlling the narrative. The play gives us various hints as to why we should pause before following their interpretations. The essay then examines a motif of hands/touch, which intersects with the motif in Paradise Lost, but to very different outcomes. The ending of the play is catastrophic and a direct result of an adherence to a particular view of God and an inability to entertain other views.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.027
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious Studies and TheologySame topicTheological Perspectives and PracticesFrench-language works237,207