Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this morning's gospel lesson, Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan, one of the most beloved of stories in the Bible and one unique to the gospel of Luke.It's important for us to note, however, that this parable is a part of an exchange with a lawyer, a lawyer who sets out to test Jesus: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"And Jesus replies, "What is written in the law, what do you read there?"But here, we need to stop for a moment, because Jesus doesn't really say "What is written in the law, what do you read there?"That is what we read in our bibles and we read that because what is written in Greek, the language of the New Testament is something a bit more curious, a bit more cryptic, a little less clear than the translation but a lot more intriguing.Let me give you a more literal translation of Jesus' response to the lawyer who questions: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"In true Talmudic fashion Jesus answers this question with a question -actually with two questions: First, "In the law, what is written?"And then, "How do you read?" 2In the law, what is written?How do you read?How do you read?Not what do you read, but how do you read?Now this is a curious question, a questionable question, in fact.What kind of a response would such a question elicit?I read well?I read slowly?I read often?I rarely read?How do you read?The lawyer goes on to answer Jesus' two questions by first answering the first question about what is written in the law.He says: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind and your neighbour as yourself."The lawyer tells Jesus and us what is written in the law, but in so doing he also tells us how he reads because his answer is revealing.His answer tells us something about his reading strategy, In
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".