MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024135189 · doi:10.1163/157006307x170625

Familial Dimensions of Group Identity (II): "Mothers" and "Fathers" in Associations and Synagogues of the Greek World

2007· article· en· W2024135189 on OpenAlexaff
Philip A. Harland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Judaism · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourJewish studiesTerminologyDiasporaHierarchyAssociation (psychology)Identity (music)Church FathersRelation (database)JudaismSociologyGender studiesHistoryGenealogyLinguisticsLiteraturePolitical scienceArtPhilosophyLawAestheticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fictive parental language (e.g. "mother of the synagogue," "father of the association") has drawn limited attention within two scholarly circles, namely, those who study diaspora synagogues, on the one hand, and ancient historians, on the other. is article brings these two scholarly interests together and argues, based on inscriptional evidence, that parental metaphors were more widespread and significant in cities and associations of the Greek East than o en acknowledged. Such terminology was an important way of expressing honour, hierarchy, and/or belonging within the association or community, and it could also pertain to functional leadership roles (rather than mere honorifics) in certain cases. e Jewish practice of calling figures "mother" or "father" of the synagogue can be better understood within this cultural framework and in relation to associations specifically.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of JudaismSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207