Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giorgio Agamben's work at the intersection of political theology, biblical exegesis, and culture criticism is taken up appreciatively. In an argument framed by Paul's Damascus Road experience, key texts such as 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 9–11 are explored with Agamben, new proposals being made, to set the stage for a discussion of 2 Thessalonians 2. Successful treatment of this last text, and of the dialectic of law and lawlessness as it appears there, requires more attention to context than Agamben affords. That includes the Thessalonian correspondence as a whole, the teaching of Jesus, and the book of Daniel that underlies both. It also includes an appreciation of the narrative and liturgical framing of Pauline eschatology. While Agamben is questioned on this score, and his reading of 2 Thessalonians 2 challenged, common cause is made in critique of church/state alliances around pandemic policy, alliances based on a lawless use of law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".