Bibliographic record
Abstract
ne of the hallmarks of Frederik Wisse's academic work was his use V^/of examples from the natural sciences to illuminate his arguments.Recent developments in genetics may prove illustrative for this present analysis of the methodological problems Biblical scholars still encounter when using rhetorical criticism to make historical conclusions about Paul's congregations.How many and which genes are contained in the human genetic structure?Answering that question became, in the last years of the twentieth century and the first years of our own, a huge scientific enterprise.Until very late in the quest to identify the entire genome, the most common estimates of our complexity-in genetic terms, at least-put the number at somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000 genes.According to Stephen Jay Gould, in his 2003 book The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magisters Pox: Bridging the Gap Between Science and the Humanities, one company even advertised the specific answer: 142,634.The quest was both scientific and commercial, as those drug companies and biotechnical firms not already funding research were seen as the potential customers for information and ultimately, perhaps, patents on each of those 142,634 genes.Imagine the surprise, then, when at a press conference on February 12, 2001 scientists announced that they had completed mapping the genome and that there are, in fact, only about 30,000 genes in the human body (Gould 228).This means that human beings, genetically speaking, are only half again as complex as the fruit fly, and only one third more complex than a nematode, or "worm" of 19,000 genes, C. elegans, whose main feature seems to be its almost complete lack of features.Behind the error of the hugely inflated numbers seems to be a fairly simple methodological fault, which was then exacerbated by a commercial interest.Gould explains for the non-scientist: "Genes don't make proteins directly.Rather, they replicate themselves, and they
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".