MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991390674 · doi:10.1163/156851711x551563

Word Order in the War Scroll (1QM) and Its Implications for Interpretation

2011· article· en· W1991390674 on OpenAlex
John Screnock

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDead Sea Discoveries · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord orderLinguisticsSyntaxVerbSubject (documents)Interpretation (philosophy)Inversion (geology)HebrewWord (group theory)Jewish studiesHebrew BibleComputer scienceBiblical studiesOrder (exchange)PhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In studies of Qumran Hebrew, syntax has been somewhat neglected. The present study attempts to help fill in our understanding of QH syntax, and word order specifically. The data of 1QM can best be explained using a Subject-Verb model. However, the model is not perfect. Consideration of the strange word order patterns of and leads to a revision of the SV model, which is better able to account for all the word order phenomena in 1QM. The basic word order of 1QM is best described as Subject-Verb, with inversion triggered by the fronting of a non-subject element or by the use of an intransitive main verb. A robust understanding of word order carries important ramifications for interpretation. In 1QM 1:1‐3, for example, word order supports an identification of the sons of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin as “violators of the covenant.”

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.212 · 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