MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W107229705 · doi:10.51644/gcnn7973

The Other Side of Jabbok

2014· article· en· W107229705 sur OpenAlexaff
Mark W. Harris

Notice bibliographique

RevueConsensus · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueArchaeology and Historical Studies
Établissements canadiensWilfrid Laurier University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNothingSuspectHappeningCharacter (mathematics)Reading (process)Action (physics)Active listeningPhilosophyAestheticsHistoryLiteratureSociologyArtEpistemologyArt historyLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

his is Jacob’s story. That is really where we need to begin, by acknowledging that this familiar story of the wrestling at the Jabbok is all about Jacob. He is the focus, the character standing at center stage. But even as we listen to this reading, we cannot assume that Jacob’s is the only story, or even the only character in this story who is worth pondering. In Scripture as in life, those in the spotlight can so capture our attention that we completely overlook what is happening on the edges or in the margins. In doing so, we inadvertently neglect those stories that are suggested but left untold. Maybe we assume they have nothing to say or nothing of importance worth listening to. But sometime, just sometimes, if we can turn our attention beyond the obvious, we may see, hear, and find ourselves challenged and surprised in ways we never imagined. Indeed, we might even find God to be present and working in the margins, places where we least expect God to be found! What would happen if we looked, in this story, where we did not expect the action to be? This is Jacob’s story, after all, and I suspect that we have always heard it that way. But have you ever wondered about the view of the other side of the Jabbok? What was the story of those whom this text does not even acknowledge by giving them names, but who were sent across the stream, so that Jacob could be left alone in his wrestling? While today’s text – in its single-minded focus on Jacob - does not name these characters, we know who they were… or at least some of them. Here, on the other side of the Jabbok was Rachel, with whom a younger Jacob had been so utterly smitten that he worked for seven years to win her hand in marriage, only to discover that Laben, his devious father-in-law, had slipped Rachel’s older sister, Leah, into the marriage bed. As a result, Jacob had to work still another seven years to earn Rachel as his bride. Here, on the other side of the Jabbok was Rachel’s son, Joseph, who was the apple of his father’s eye, who would be sold into slavery by his jealous brothers, and who would end up in Pharaoh’s household in Egypt. Here, on the other side of the Jabbok was Leah (the older sister) and her children, Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah. Here, on the other side of the Jabbok was Rachel’s handmaid, Bilhah, whom Rachel had given to Jacob when her own womb was barren, and the sons she bore, Dan and Naphtali. Here, on the other side of the Jabbok was Leah’s handmaid, Zilpah, who had born Gad and Asher to Jacob as well. So here, on the other side of the Jabbok, were Jacob’s wives, maids, and children, as well as servants, herdsmen, and their families that are not even numbered. And so, while the text barely mentions any of these, in its effort to tell Jacob’s story, they were all there. They, too were heirs of the promise, the future of God’s chosen people, and we can be certain that they had their own stories to tell. T

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,963
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,423

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,222
Écart entre enseignants0,188 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueConsensusMême sujetArchaeology and Historical StudiesTravaux en français237 207