The Thunder: Perfect Mind: A New Translation and Introduction, by Hal Taussig, Jared Calaway, Maia Kotrosits, Celene Lillie, and Justin Lasser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
strictness of each text, which every contributor was asked to include [18]), since there are various points of focus, such as textual analysis, scribal habits, variants, etc. Elliott's evaluation of the papyri containing the Catholic Epistles stands out from other chapters in terms of approach, in that it examines how the text of the papyri relate to the text established by the Editio Critica Maior.In his evaluation of the text of Matthew's Gospel, Wasserman adopts the method of Kyoung Shik Min, which maps the correspondence between the text of the papyri and that of the NA 27 .Here I should say that I found the approach and format of Wasserman's essay to be the most clear of all the essays.Overall, this book is an important addition to our field and thus is to be recommended to anyone interested in the text of the New Testament, in spite of the apparent apologetic predispositions on the part of the editors.It should be noted that there are numerous typographical errors, which I list here: "Papryi" (p9); "P.Papyrus inv.2" (47); "διαθήκη-γ῎ρ" (73); "δεκαπντε" (92); incorrect chart (97); "7/1" should be 7/12 in chart (98); "Manuscript" (105); "suggests that were" (109 n.2); "edition."(114); P in "P 45 " is without Unicode (115); "ι<ει" (127); "Jesus affirmation" (149); "identity" should be "identical" (164); "Leonidas" should be "Leonides" (187 n.49); Coptic conjunction "AYO" should be "AYW" (243); "collection of come kind" (267); "what he though" (274); last word of Did.3b in Table 15.1 is ὑμᾶς but should be ὑμῶν (286); "κριθῆτε.ε᾽ν" in Matt 7:1 in Table 15.2 (289).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
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".