MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045040262 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2001.v3.a9

Nehemiah 9–10: Structure and Significance

2001· article· en· W2045040262 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrayerMeaning (existential)NeglectOrder (exchange)PhilosophyEpistemologyFunction (biology)HistoryTheologyPsychologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As some have recognized long ago, Nehemiah 9 is the theological centerpiece of Ezra-Nehemiah. Yet, until recently the long prayer has not received the attention that it deserves. The excellent essays about Nehemiah 9 by Rolf Rentdorff and Hugh Williamson stand out as exceptions to the general neglect of the prayer. Fortunately, the neglect has been remedied with some new and important studies that greatly enrich our ability to appreciate Nehemiah 9. This paper has two goals: first it reviews some central contributions to the discussion about Nehemiah 9 made by new studies of Nehemiah 9. Second, it builds upon these studies in order to shed more light on the function and meaning of the prayer. In particular, the paper shows how the three-part structure of Nehemiah 9 discloses a specific response to the challenge of continuity and new beginnings in the postexilic era. The implications of such response are also addressed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.213 · 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