MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937071531

Ancient Near Eastern gods Enki and Ea: diachronical analysis of texts and images from the earliest sources to the Neo-Sumerian period

2006· dissertation· en· W1937071531 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peeter Espak

Bibliographic record

VenueDSpace repository (University of Tartu) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTel Aviv UniversityUniversity of TorontoJapan Nuclear Energy Safety OrganizationUniversity of OxfordHarvard UniversitySihtasutus ArchimedesUniversity of PennsylvaniaPrinceton UniversityYale University
KeywordsSumerianPeriod (music)Ancient historyHistoryAkkadianArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The finds at Eridu, and at a considerably later period at Lagash, show that in these places the people dedicated to Enki his portion of their goods, not in the form of grain or meat, the basic form of wealth among farming communities, but in fish, the product of river, lagoon and marsh." 15Cf. the treatment of Old-Akkadian glyptic art in 4.4. of the current study.16 Cf.5.2.2. of the current study.In Old-Sumerian sources, the title of the "first city" seems to be attested to Nippur of Enlil. 17Cf.H. D. Galter, Ea/Enki, p. 287. 18S. Lloyd, Iraq 36 (1974), p. 137. 19M. Green, Eridu, p. 151: In later literary texts, Enki is associated more intimately with his city and its powers than any other Sumerian god with its dwelling place.Cf. p. 153: Green concludes that Eridu's position as a "locus of magical powers" might well have been established already during the Ubaid period and could have been the reason for continued maintenance of the shrine at Eridu into the Neo-Babylonian period. 20

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDSpace repository (University of Tartu)Same topicAncient Near East HistoryFrench-language works237,207