MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019497537

Foreign tyrants : Greco-Roman Jewish epideictic rhetoric in Mark 10:42-43a

2008· dissertation· en· W7019497537 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Law and Migration
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricRhetorical questionJudaismParallelsIdeal (ethics)Face (sociological concept)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bitter mention of foreign tyrants in Mark 10:42-43a has long been interpreted as an accurate description of "pagan" life that contrasted with life in ideal Christian community. More recently, it has been read as a piece of rhetoric aimed at imperial Rome. These explanations are too simple, since they do not take into account the fact that contrasting ideal authority with stereotyped foreign tyranny was an established habit within imperial Roman rhetorical culture itself. I argue that the passage is best understood as Jewish participation in this Greco-Roman tradition. This study traces the evolution of the stereotyped image of foreign tyranny in Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Greco-Roman Jewish rhetoric, and suggests that the rhetorical strategy of Mark 10:42-43a parallels the selective and strategic use of the image in the Greco-Roman Jewish work of Josephus, and represents a similar simultaneous resistance and accommodation in the face of Roman imperial culture.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicEuropean Law and MigrationFrench-language works237,207