MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019574478 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a12

The Structure of Zechariah 8 and Its Meaning

2012· article· en· W2019574478 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)ConvictionPhilosophyMeaning (existential)EpistemologyContent (measure theory)LiteratureLawArtChemistryPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapters 1–8 and 9–14 of Zechariah are considered by most scholars today to be two separate prophetic books; only chs. 1–8 are attributed to the post-exilic time of the beginning of the 5th century BCE1 Most scholars believe that Zech 7–8 should be regarded as one unit. This conviction is based mainly on the fact that 8:19 is the prophet’s answer to the people’s question in 7:1–3 as to whether fasting for the destruction of the Temple should be continued even after its construction had begun.2 This approach is based on two main arguments, the first of which is formal, and the second of which concerns content. The formal argument is that 7:1 opens with a new formula that includes a date, as do 1:1 and 1:7. The second argument is that the people’s question to the priests in 7:3 is answered in 8:19. However, these arguments are not decisive. First, the formal opening in 7:1 can relate to ch. 7 alone. Second, of all the diverse material of ch. 8, only one verse (v. 19) relates closely to ch. 7.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.216 · 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