Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important ideas in Jehovah's Witness theology1 is the binary distinction of the Truth and the World.2Evangelical Christians commonly use the World as a term to define their community and beliefs.3What differs about Jehovah's Witnesses is that among themselves, they refer to their religion as the Truth.These terms mark for them clear domains of inside and outside.Insiders believe in the Truth and are literally in the Truth.For example, if someone were wondering about an old friend she had not spoken to in a while, she might ask if he is still in the Truth, or if he has left the Truth.Referring to outside discourse, Witnesses use the terms the World or the Worldly system of things.Outsiders are Worldly people or people of the World.Jehovah' s Witnesses advise their membership against having any unnecessary association with Worldly people, which often includes coworkers and classmates.Commonly cited at their meetings and in their Bible literature is 1 Corinthians 15:33: "Do not be misled.1.For more on Jehovah's Witness theology, see Heather and Gary Botting, The Orwellian World of JehovaMs Witnesses (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984).Despite the bias manifest in their title, the Bottings' theological knowledge is quite sound.For more on the sociology and history of Jehovah's Witnesses, see James A. Beckford, The Trumpet of Prophecy: A Sociological Study of Jehovah Witnesses (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975) and Herbert Hewitt Stroup, The JehovaHs Witnesses (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945).There is a dearth of quality academic work on Witnesses, particularly in the contemporary era, and much of the knowledge in this paper comes from my own fieldwork and by the patience of the many Jehovah's Witnesses who answered my myriad questions.2.1 will italicize the first instance of any Jehovah's Witness jargon in order to alert the reader to its significance.As will become evident later in the essay, this use of insider speech works to perform the group's boundaries. Susan Harding eloquently discusses this usage in her analysis of Fundamentalist language and politics in
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".