MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964444230 · doi:10.1177/000842980703600105

Exodus and settlement: A two sojourn hypothesis

2007· article· en· W1964444230 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Graham Hagens

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Egypt and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman settlementPeninsulaSettlement (finance)ScholarshipPeriod (music)HistoryPopulationGeographyAncient historyDemographyArchaeologyPolitical scienceSociologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although recent scholarship has questioned the very existence of an historical Exodus, a review of the evidence does suggest that a significant number of Asiatic workers did leave Egypt during the late 19th or early 20th Dynasties of Egypt and made their way to the Canaanite highlands via the Sinai peninsula. It is very probable that this event is related to the establishment of numerous new settlements in the Canaanite highlands during the early Iron Age. The suggestion made here is that the numerous conflicts between the biblical and extrabiblical materials associated with this model may be resolved by assuming that migrants split into two distinct groups during this Exodus-Sojourn experience. The larger of these spent very little time in transit and formed the bulk of the population of the Iron I highland settlements. A second, smaller contingent, however, remained in the Sinai for a considerably longer period of time in association with Bedouin tribes in the Arabah. It is this second group to which the emergence of Yahwism may be attributed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicAncient Egypt and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207