MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411792329 · doi:10.5507/sth.2024.050

Crux Interpretum in 1 Cor 15:29

2025· article· it· W4411792329 on OpenAlexaff
Petr Mareček

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia theologica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When discussing the subject of the resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul alludes to apractice of the Corinthian Christians that he had heard about. This is baptism for the dead. This isolated reference by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:29, which is expressed with insufficient clarity, has led to many interpretive proposals in the history of exegesis. The closest explanation seems to be avicarious (vicariate) baptism, which members of the church community received for those who died unbaptized, so that these dead might receive the saving effect of baptism. We cannot entirely rule out, however, the possibility that some people were baptized out of affection or respect for deceased Christian relatives or friends who fervently desired their conversion and who prayed for them. These people consequently received baptism in the hope of ashared celebration at the resurrection. In the end, however, it has to be admitted that it is impossible to determine exactly what this baptism for the dead amounted to. The Apostle Paul, who does not describe it in detail and who provides no evaluation of it, mentions it only as an argument in favour of belief in the resurrection of the dead.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.016

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia theologicaSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207