Hegel's Interpretation of the Religions of the World: The Logic of the Gods, by Jon Stewart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scott's discursive habits of oppressed people, common and expected ancient Jewish reactions to Roman ideology, etc.).Heilig concludes that an anti-Roman subtext is indeed relatively probable in Paul, but more careful study conducted on such grounds is still needed.Predictably, Heilig's conclusions and suggestions all look convincing to the degree that the reader shares the ideas of likelihood involved in a given chapter's argument.Hidden Criticism spends a lot of time, for example, asking questions about Paul's most likely "intentions," as reconstructed based partly on our understanding of his "personality" (pp.83, 117, 155, 173, 235, 241, 305).However, if scholars like Laura Nasrallah and Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre are right in stressing that the authorial voice(s) of Pauline letters must always present -in good ancient epistolary form -strategic authorial personae, it is not clearly likely that we can recover "Paul's personality" from his letters, or that such intuitions are likely to help us divine any hidden personal intentions.It is even less clearly likely that we can use stories about Paul from the book of Acts to psychologize him, as Heilig does now and then (pp.38, 115, 137, 232, 237, etc.).At its best, then, Hidden Criticism is a necessary, measured and open-minded call for due diligence in scholarly engagement with the anti-Roman Pauline subtext hypothesis.At its worst, it is a valuable reminder of the generally desultory state of the question.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".