Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Myth of Sacred Prostitution follows her well-argued and researched article "Sacred Prostitution in the First Person," in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (2006).Amounting to eleven chapters, this book is a lengthy and extensive study of the concept of sacred prostitution, which has been a hotly debated topic for many years among scholars.Budin's main thesis is that the institution never really existed and the concept was instead developed to tarnish and stigmatize alien cultures.All along she argues for a lack of evidence for sacred prostitution anywhere in the ancient world (p.1).The author feels that inaccurate evidence, produced in part by faulty translations and an over-reliance on ancient writers such as Herodotus who sought to prove the inferiority of barbarian cultures, have led to this misconception.Within the introduction she offers her own definition of sacred prostitution as "the sale of a person's body for sexual purposes where some portion (if not all) of the money or goods received for this transaction belongs to a deity" (p.3).This study begins in the Ancient Near East, specifically Mesopotamia and Israel, and continues to early Christian writers.Budin normally provides a great deal of information to the reader and explains terminology clearly.One exception to this however, is her use of the obsolete second
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".