Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines three passages from the Rule of the Congregation and the Damascus Document that pertain to the topic of children’s education. The education of children was considered important within the Qumran movement, which is evident in the curriculum in 1QSa and the fact that such a high-level official as the Examiner had a supervisory role over the teaching. In contrast to the level of education of children in Jewish society in general at the turn of the era, which appears to have been quite rudimentary and consisting mainly of memorization, it appears that children within the movement received a thorough education in both reading and writing. The content of the teaching focused on the laws of the Torah and the Book of Hagu, which is an unknown composition. It is likely that both boys and girls received some education. Cet article examine trois passages de la Règle de la Congrégation et le Document de Damas qui se rapportent au thème de l’éducation des enfants. L’éducation des enfants était considérée comme importante au sein du mouvement de Qumrân, importance qui est évidente dans le programme de 1QSa et le fait qu’un tel fonctionnaire de haut niveau que l’examinateur a eu un rôle de supervision sur l’enseignement. Contrairement au niveau de l’éducation des enfants dans la société juive en général au début de l’époque, qui semble avoir été assez rudimentaire et composé principalement de mémorisation, il semble que les enfants au sein du mouvement ont reçu une éducation complète en lecture et en écrit. Le contenu de l’enseignement a été axé sur les lois de la Torah et le Livre d’Hagu, qui est une composition inconnue. Il est probable que les garçons et les filles ont reçu une certaine éducation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".