MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043155265 · doi:10.7202/1025468ar

L’énigme topographique de Gibea

2014· article· fr· W2043155265 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christophe Lemardelé

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Egypt and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tout récemment, l’archéologue Israel Finkelstein a récusé l’identification du site de Tell el-Ful comme pouvant être la cité biblique de Gibea. Sans remettre en cause sa lecture de la stratigraphie du site, il apparaît toutefois qu’on ne peut tirer de conclusion définitive à partir des données d’un site confrontées trop directement à ce que dit la Bible. En effet, si l’on procède à une « archéologie » des mentions de la ville dans les textes bibliques, il ressort qu’elle ne fut pas la cité fortifiée de Saül et que le massacre des habitants de Gibea peut être envisagé comme postérieur à ce roi, bouleversant la chronologie biblique habituelle. Pour faire de l’histoire avec la Bible, il importe de se baser sur une archéologie scientifique mais également sur une critique des textes bibliques totalement émancipée de leurs enjeux théologiques.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicAncient Egypt and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207