MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092614083 · doi:10.17613/a4b7s-7rz22

"SO THAT EVERYONE IS BUILT UP": EXPLORING PAUL'S ETHICS OF "ΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΗ" IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12, 13, AND 14

2025· article· en· W7092614083 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiffusion and Search Dynamics
Canadian institutionsRegent College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Power (physics)Work (physics)Mode (computer interface)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The heart of this paper explores Paul's use of the language of οικοδομη, οικοδομεω ("building up, edifying") and concomitant imagery of the church as ναος of the Spirit, as Paul applies it in the context of the gathered church in 1 Corinthians 12 – 14. To get there, we will first highlight the Corinthian crisis and establish Paul's purposed use of οικοδομη language and temple imagery earlier in the letter. Then we will enter a "re-imagination" of οικοδομη for chapters 8 and 12 –14.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.058
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicDiffusion and Search DynamicsFrench-language works237,207