The Formation and Intention of the Haggai-Zechariah Corpus
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the similar dating system in the books of Haggai and Zechariah, since the end of the 19th century it has been proposed that these two books once formed an independent collection: the Haggai-Zechariah corpus. But neither the formation nor the intention of this corpus has been adequately explained. This article shows that only the book of Zechariah underwent redaction in the course of the composition of this “Book of the Two.” This position stands in contrast with the common assumption that both books underwent redaction in the process. Then the article shows that the Haggai-Zechariah corpus can be understood as a reaction to the decreasing hope for divine salvation in the fifth century. In the light of, and despite the negative experiences that characterize this period, the Haggai-Zechariah corpus adheres to the promises of the early pre-exilic prophecy. But in order to adhere to these promises, the conditions for their fulfillment had to be (re)defined.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 it