Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is meant as an invitation to further the use of the concept of utopia as a heuristic tool among historians of ancient Israel for the purpose of reconstructing the world of ideas of the late Persian period Yehud. To do so, and given that the term “utopia” may be and has been used in different ways, it advances, first, general considerations about an heuristic, pragmatic understanding of “utopia” and “utopian images” that may be particularly helpful for these purposes. Then it advances a number of observations about utopia and utopian images that were evoked when the literati of the late Yehud read and reread their authoritative corpus of texts. These observations deal, among others, with matters of exploration and certainty in the relevant community, of hope, of restoration and restorative utopias; they deal with issues of temporality as past, present and future utopias were construed and with the existence of multiple memories of utopias and multiple utopias. They address the issue that utopianizing tendencies led to memorable vignettes but not to memorable road maps, they do not fail to mention matters of utopia and power, and they conclude with issues for further discussion. On the whole, this article illustrates how “utopia”-informed approaches may shed light on the intellectual discourse of this community, while at the same time noting crucial differences between utopias and utopianizing tendencies both now and then that must be taken into consideration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".