MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1993377211 · doi:10.1177/000842980703600301

Urban (re-) organization in Late Roman Palestine and the early Rabbinic guild: The Tosefta on the city and classification of space

2007· article· en· W1993377211 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jack N. Lightstone

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuildPalestineConsolidation (business)Context (archaeology)Action (physics)Ideal (ethics)HistorySpace (punctuation)GeographyAncient historySociologyLawPolitical scienceArchaeologyPhilosophyBusinessLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the latter half of the 2nd century and into the 3rd century, urban institutions and administration figured ever more prominently in the organization and governance of Roman Palestine. In this context, the consolidation of the earliest guild of rabbinic masters took hold, and their Mishnah and its supplement, Tosefta, were composed. When compared with correlative passages in the more utopic Mishnah, traditions in Tosefta show decidedly greater interest in the urban setting and its constituent institutions as the territory for meaningful, ordered, human activity. Tosefta superimposes over Mishnah's utopic mapping of a world centred on one city, an "ideal" Jerusalem, a complementary mapping in which meaningful human action and interaction is centred upon one's "local city." In this respect, one might characterize Tosefta as "diasporizing" Mishnah's mapping of an ideal world centred upon a single Temple-city.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.028
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses→Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→