MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392816500 · doi:10.1163/15685365-12341735

Social Memory Theory and the Enigmatic Mediated Past in Historical Jesus Research

2024· article· en· W4392816500 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas R. Hatina

Bibliographic record

VenueNovum Testamentum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMnemonicHistorical JesusAppropriationSocial memoryBiblical studiesRelation (database)EpistemologyFork (system call)Collective memoryHistoryLiteratureSociologyPhilosophyPsychologyTheologyCognitive scienceLinguisticsArtArchaeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The recent appropriation of social memory theory in Jesus studies has brought us to a fork in the road in relation to what is meant by a continuity of remembrances about Jesus. Currently, the common claim among many Jesus scholars is that the past of Jesus is knowable through or is contained within the memory process, not behind it or apart from it. Mnemonic processes and their text-products are regarded as a means to an historical end as opposed to being an end in and of themselves. The main problem presented in this article is that the pervading references to, and assumptions about, the mediated past as a potential link between the evangelists’ present and the actual past of Jesus lack the clarification and critical support that is needed for advancing historical Jesus research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.059
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNovum TestamentumSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207