MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W236776375

Amos in Song and Book Culture

2006· article· en· W236776375 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueShofar · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoetryLiteratureNarrativeScholarshipComposition (language)RedactionPhilosophyHistoryArtLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

in Song and Book Culture, by Joyce Rilett Wood. Journal for Study of Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 337. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. 256 pp. $80.00. This monograph, based on author's 1993 Toronto School of Theology dissertation, presents new of book of Amos. Distinguishing two editions of book, Wood regards each as a complete literary composition by different (p. 11). The first is cycle of seven poems featuring coherent narrative sequence composed by himself, while second relates to first as commentary to text. In Introduction, Wood claims that while book's literary inconsistencies rule out notion of single authorship, complex redaction-critical analyses also fail because of lack of objective criteria for assigning material to different historical strata. Thus rejecting assumption of multiple editorial levels, Wood maintains that notion of single exilic editor preserved Amos's prophetic text but thoroughly rewrote it and converted it into book with ten parts suffices to resolve book's literary problems (p. 15). Chapter 1 investigates Amos's written prophecy, which is understood as continuous poetic text of seven poems, in which subsequent poems develop thoughts of previous ones. Wood's identification of these poems is based largely on distinction by previous scholarship between prophet's original words and subsequent redactional additions. Occasionally, however, she departs from received wisdom, as for instance in case of 6:1 where Zion is taken to be authentic. The second chapter on Writing and Editing in Amos looks for traces of intrusion, which suggest presence of second stage of literary composition. Wood accepts common redaction-critical notion according to which ivdacrional additions are an attempt to adapt old text to changed historical circumstances, arguing that the reviser is not simply an editor but an author who totally rewrites original text by integrating it into new system of interpretation (p. 47). The editorial is thus understood not as separate composition but as a running commentary on Amos's [original] (p. 47), which often stands in tension with or opposition to original version (p. 48). Yet, end product is a single homogenized text with unified argument (p. 94). In Chapter 3, Wood develops her view that Amos's prophecy did not originate in numerous individual speeches or oracles but in song cycle meant to be performed before live audience. According to Wood, this song cycle had been composed for performance at marzeah feast, which she regards as counterpart to Greek poetic symposia of 7th and 6th centuries BCE. Rather controversially, Amos's original text is thus attributed to seventh-century Jerusalem rather than eighth-century Israel. However, with transition from song to book culture traces of live performance were removed, song cycle was converted into piece of history writing, and was turned from poet into larger-than-life prophet. Yet these were not only momentous modifications: book's exilic editor also turned original tragic poetry into U-shaped plot of comedy, movement Wood believes to be evident not only in book's overall structure (which in 9:11-15 ends on note of salvation) but also in its individual parts. …

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.

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 enseignants0,886
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,701

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 technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,204
Écart entre enseignants0,193 · 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