MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963798281 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a9

The Morphology of the tG- Stem in Hebrew and Tirgaltî in Hos 11:3

2012· article· en· W1963798281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeremy M. Hutton, Safwat Marzouk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHebrew University of Jerusalem
KeywordsConvictionLinguisticsMorphology (biology)Meaning (existential)Word (group theory)HebrewPhilosophyInterpreterSpace (punctuation)LexicographyEpistemologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TheMasoreticText(MT)ofHos11:3areads ְוָאֹנִכי ִתְרַגְּלִתּי ְלֶאְפַרִים Although the entire verse is difficult, the form and . ָק ָחם ַעל־ ְזרוֹעֹ ָתיו meaning of the word ִתּ ְר ַגּ ְל ִתּי (tirgaltî) has been especially problematic for interpreters from the beginning of attempts to These difficulties emerge from the morphological peculiarities of the word, as well as from the lexicographic difficulties it presents. The present article proceeds from the conviction that an adequate solution to the second problem—lexicography—requires a sufficiently comprehensive answer to the first problem—morphology. Unfortunately, although we remain optimistic that a lexicological answer to the questionable semanticfieldofthewordִתְּרַגְּלִתּי mayeventuallybegiven,suchan explanation cannot be made without significant exegetical elaboration, space for which is unavailable in the confines of the present article. Therefore, the explicit goal of the present article is to propose a solution to the former problem—the morphology of . ִתּ ְר ַגּ ְל ִתּי

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hebrew ScripturesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207