A Comparative-Linguistic Analysis of the Eucharist and its Co-Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study attempts to analyze the Eucharist in the Synoptic Gospels including their co-texts (Matt 26:14–35; Mark 14:10–31; Luke 22:3–23, 31–34), via a Mode Register Analysis based on Systemic Functional Linguistics. The purpose of this study is threefold: (1) to model a linguistic methodology and to apply it to each text of the Eucharist and its co-texts in the Synoptic Gospels, (2) to find meaningful linguistic characteristics of each designated text via a comparative analysis based on the preceding study, and finally (3) to suggest a balanced and plausible hypothesis which may offer convincing explanations of the Synoptic Gospels’ construction process. The thesis of this study is as follows: in the Synoptic Gospels’ construction process, each constructor reflected the oral Gospel tradition(s) significantly, as the one who had formed/contributed the tradition (probably Matthew), or the one who delivered it (probably Mark), or the one who preserved it (probably Luke), though there is also the possibility that each of them made use of written sources including the other Gospel(s).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".