Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter shifts from the controversies in making canon to focus on the content itself. What determines meaning and truth? The deep ken seeks the meaning intended by the divine author, mediated by the guarantees of tradition, and received by a pious reader. The plain ken considers the intentions of scripture's human scribes (or “co-authors”), as well as the historical circumstances of both those original scribes as well as generations of copyists. A comparative history of Biblical and Qur'anic interpretation contrasts the Christian deep-ken quest for depth (meaning buried in the text by God) with the Muslim plain-ken quest for flatness (a simple meaning revealed through the historical circumstances of revelation). In the fifteenth century, Muslims (especially al-Biqa'i and al-Suyuti) continued to build on these early plain-ken foundations. The Christians held the deep ken close, but (especially Valla and Erasmus) inched towards the plain ken, in particular by revising their understanding of literal meaning and by historicizing manuscript production.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".