Bibliographic record
Abstract
A subsequent edition might address the following typos: "capitol" (238), "antineighborly"(242), "antihuman" (353), "the distinctions … is" (275) and the all too familiar, tautologous phrase "common consensus" (1, 3x).In the Index on Names (431-434): the page location for citation of poet "Yeats" should be page 283; Scott, James M." should follow "Scott, J(ames) C." and the names cited corrected to Moberly, R.W.L.," "Soulen, R. Kendall" (433) and "Wybrow, Cameron" (434).Page 244 should be added to the page citations given for both Luther and Calvin (432).Also "Hill, John, 179" and "Herodotus, 179" should be added to page 432, as well as "Rosenberg, David, xii" to p.433.In short, the book is a bold attempt to decipher the theological, ideological code underlying the instruction, prophecy, wisdom, narrative, poetry, and apocalyptic of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.One wonders to what degree this particular publication, a milestone in a lifetime of biblical study, if methodologically insightful and correct, does not ultimately undermine, if not negate, the validity of most, if not all, of Brueggemann's previous historicalcritical published work.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".