MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386766189 · doi:10.26443/arc.v33i.688

Nag Hammadi in the Bible Belt

2005· article· en· W4386766189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie C. Polzer

Bibliographic record

VenueArc The Journal of the School of Religious Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative Religion in a large, urban, public university located on the fringes of the American South, yet very much in the heart of the Bible Belt.But strangely enough, Coptic has colored my teaching here in a way it never did while teaching in Canada, not the Coptic language itself precisely, but the largely Coptic corpus of the Nag Hammadi library (Robinson 1978).While studying these texts for the first time in Professor Wisse's graduate seminar on Gnosticism in fall 1983, I could not foresee how useful they would be, 20 years later, trying to instill a critical approach to the study of religious belief and practice here in Bible Belt, almost Southern, USA.In fact, if the success of one's academic training can be judged by how much a graduate student can directly transfer content from a course to his subsequent teaching, Fred Wisse's Gnosticism course comes out, without contest, on top, providing me with more raw teaching material than any other course taken during my graduate career.Although I teach in a public American university, hence ostensibly effecting the constitutional mandate of separation of Church and State, the student culture fully embodies the dominant culture of the region.This culture is a recently urbanized culture, a pious culture, and a thoroughly Christian culture.It is also a patriotic culture, right wing politically, in which being a good Christian and a good American

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArc The Journal of the School of Religious StudiesSame topicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207