Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface and substratum hermeneutics are at work here in what appears at first blush to be a mythopoetic construct, a whimsical trajectory of the midrashic mind. Surface strategies include gap filling together with stated and unstated word-plays, all to the end of forging a link between the midrashic proposition and the biblical text. Substratum hermeneutics, on the other hand, reveals an interpretation inextricably bound up in Scripture. What strikes us as a blatant dissonance between the biblical narrative and the midrash turns out, upon closer study, to be a substantive, thematic relationship which informs and legitimizes the midrashic reading. This article will examine the apparent disjunction of the biblical narrative and the midrashic teaching, note the factitious nature of the surface strategies, speculate on the underlying hermeneutic that may not only inform this particular exegesis, but also suggest a more profound understanding of the symbiotic relationship of Scripture to midrash and, finally, meditate on the existential teaching that emerges from the creative nexus between the biblical text and the rabbinic imagination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".