Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract FEMINIST SCHOLARS AND THEOLOGIANS have been the most ambitious in using the newly found gospels to reconstruct the early churches in their own image. This is not surprising, given that gender issues have been so central in the study of religion over the last quarter-century, the period during which the Nag Hammadi texts have come into public view. As Elaine Pagels has written, “The Nag Hammadi source, discovered at a time of contemporary social crises concerning sexual roles, challenges us to reinterpret history—and to re-evaluate the present situation.”1 The new sources seem all the more valuable because they feature women so centrally as companions and apostles of Jesus, while women are known to have played an important role in the historical Gnostic movement. The hidden gospels might preserve memories of an age when women were far more important in the Jesus movement than later writings would indicate, when women were apostles and prophets, leaders and bishops. And if that was the case in the first century, how could a similar role be denied to any succeeding generation? Mary Magdalen is sometimes portrayed in modem writing as a founding mother of Christianity with a primacy equivalent to that held by Peter in Catholic sources. For a society engaged in endemic controversy over women’s ordination and feminist revisions of liturgy and scriptural language, this is all highly relevant evidence.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.028 |
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".