Bibliographic record
Abstract
ne of many pleasures in sixteen years of working beside Fred Wisse V^/has been an increasingly shared interest in the argumentative economy of the New Testament texts, especially at a time in the life of the churches when reference to a few schematized master biblical narratives has all but eclipsed appeal to the Bible's propositional arguments.In Biblical Theology and Christian Ethics today, as well as in the discourse of journalism, "the story" takes priority over the arguments in public debate.There continues to be, however, in North American culture, an important subcultural discourse of theological, ethical and political argumentation more or less based on claims from and about the Bible.It is with particular pleasure, then, that I offer to Fred the following first attempt on my part at an analysis, not of the Bible's own argumentation, but of argumentative appeals to the Bible in a few examples drawn from the North American press.In the words of Stephen Fowl, Professor at Loyola College in Maryland and an influential voice in the contemporary revival of Biblical Theology:Almost anyone who has been involved in some form of churchbased Bible study, particularly within the mainline Protestant denominations, will be familiar with the following claims: Nobody's interpretation is better than anyone else's; everyone has a right to his/her own interpretation; it is rude and not inclusive to fail to accept someone's interpretation as true for that person.These are all forms of anti-determinate interpretation.They are not, however, the result of a theory of interpretation.Rather they reflect many American Christians' deep and unshakeable commitments to the doctrines of liberal democracy in a market economy.A different theory of interpretation will not address the type of anti-determinacy represented in these 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".