New directions in Qumran studies : proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10 September 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Qumran Sect in the Context of Second Temple Sectarianism Joseph P. Blenkinsopp, University of Notre Dame, USA The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction Between Higher and Lower Criticism George J. Brooke, University of Manchester, UK 'Rewritten Bible' and 'Parabiblical Texts': A Terminological and Ideological Critique Jonathan G. Campbell, University of Bristol, UK Sects from Texts: On the Problems of Doing a Sociology of the Qumran Literature Philip R. Davies, University of Sheffield, UK 'Men of Perfect Holiness' (1QS 7:20): Social Scientific Thoughts on Group Identity, Asceticism and Ethical Development in the Rule of the Community Louise J. Lawrence, University of Glasgow, UK Another Look at the Lands of Damascus: The Spaces of the Damascus Document in the Light of Edward W. Soja's Thirdspace Approach Liv Ingeborg Lied, University of Bergen, Norway 'An Unauthorised Version': The Temple Scroll in Narratological Perspective William J. Lyons, University of Bristol, UK The Language of Gates and Entering: On Sacred Space in the Temple Scroll Jorunn Okland, University of Oslo, Norway and University of Sheffield, UK. 'False Teaching, Lying Tongues and Deceitful Lips (4Q 169 frgs 3-4 2.8): The Pesharim and the Sociology of Deviance Lloyd K. Pietersen, University of Bristol, UK Probing the Possibilities and Pitfalls of Post-Colonial Approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls Andy M. Reimer, Canadian Bible College, Canada and University of Sheffield, UK
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.006 |
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".