MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992562050 · doi:10.1163/156853300506369

ADULTEROUS JERUSALEM'S IMAGINED DEMISE: DEATH OF A METAPHOR IN EZEKIEL XVI

2000· article· en· W1992562050 on OpenAlexaff
Peggy L. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueVetus Testamentum · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdulteryInterpretation (philosophy)Punishment (psychology)Hebrew BibleMetaphorBiblical studiesAssertionCovenantPhilosophyLawDemiseLiteratureTheologyPolitical scienceArtPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Scholars typically assert that the punishment section of Ezekiel xvi includes several features that accurately depict the appropriate and lawful punishment for adultery in ancient Israel. This article refutes the standard scholarly interpretation in two ways. First, it demonstrates that the standard interpretation is based on a flawed understanding of the nature of metaphor. It concludes that, although scholars claim that they are reading metaphorically, in fact they are taking the language literally. Secondly, it reviews all of the biblical and extrabiblical evidence cited by scholars in support of asserting that four of the features of the depicted punishment reflect the lawful punishment for adultery. It concludes that the evidence cited does not support the assertion. Rather, the punishment depicted draws upon consequences threatened for breach of covenant, which is the transgression that the people of Jerusalem are accused of committing in Ezekiel xvi.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVetus TestamentumSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207