Bibliographic record
Abstract
The account of Jesus cleansing the temple is not about bingo.Maybe that never occurred to you, but when I was growing up, this morning's Gospel reading often brought bingo to mind!Oh, it wasn't the game itself; it was the notion of playing bingo to raise money for the church.Looking back, it was actually more about Catholics than about bingo.We Protestants had cultivated an anti-Catholic bias in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.Parents worried that their sons or daughters might marry Roman Catholics.And when John Kennedy ran for president, some worried that the pope would soon be running the United States of America.We were suspicious of Roman Catholics because, well, they were different.They ate fish on Fridays and gave up things for Lent.Bingo was further proof that Catholics were up to no good because they played bingo in church and Lutherans didn't.So, we were always waiting for Jesus to come and overturn the bingo tables, sending the cards flying all over the church basement and spilling the little numbers out of the cage that spun them around."Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"Jesus would shout as he tipped over the cash boxes.We were quite sure that Jesus didn't have any problems with our pork and sauerkraut suppers or the strawberry social which raised money for missions.But bingo, well, that's different!But it's not about bingo.Jesus' disruption that day in the temple was a compelling sign of Jesus' disruption of the way things were.We usually think of this episode happening near the end of Jesus' life, after he had ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey.After all, it's a crisis scene, a confrontation that gave the authorities the evidence they needed.This Jesus was troublemaker -probably part of the Zealot movement trying to overthrow the government.Now it is true that this story does come near the end in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.Jesus' outburst in the temple was one of the last
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.009 |
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".