Bibliographic record
Abstract
T Tas anything in fact been left untried, has anyone not attempted Alto reconcile the conflict of convictions which is a sort of sickness of the mind?"1So Erasmus asked in one of his soul-searching letters that persistently tried to avoid the schism between his fellow-Christians by going beyond dogmatic controversies.By so asking he, in fact, was defining as pathological the conflict in faith that not only was dominating his days but, as he well knew, was a historical constant in the life of Christianity For this he had only to remind himself and his audience of the first instance of the discourse of religious debate registered in the narrative of the early church, Paul's Areopagus harangue in the Acts of the Apostles.This mythical confrontation encapsulates in an iconic scene the encounter between the Hellenistic culture of Greco-Latin philosophy and rhetoric and the new faith discourse, structured by Jewish religious concepts.The episode situates the emergence of Christianity as an organized religious movement and reveals its powerful rhetorical discourse of pragmatic articulation with a plural tradition.In my reading, Paul was a man of his times and of many places: he was a fairly Hellenized Jewish "intellectual" of the public sort, acutely aware of the political life in Roman Palestine and intensely engaged in the building of the new religious institution, the Christian church.By recognizing both his Judaism and his acquaintance with the Greco-Roman culture of the first and second centuries (when both he and Luke are thought to have lived and written) we can resituate him in a cultural environment that was suffering profound changes, coping with enormous pressures.Paul's contribution to the intellectual development of the Western culture, his "invention" of Christianity 1. Emphasis mine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".