Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores several aspects of the study of the book of Chronicles as a written document meant to be read and reread by a specific readership. First, it proposes that the book shows a more subtle, balanced and sophisticated position than the (in)famous theology of immediate, personal retribution. Second, the article deals with the book as a new historiographical work interacting in various ways with earlier works, and representing a singularly important document for understanding the intellectual history of Yehud in the Persian period. Third, the article addresses Chronicles' construction of ideological and discursive events that enable readers to reframe and readjust their social memory in the context of their society. It claims that this process led to, and was reflective of a formulation of a main social memory that served to frame the identity of the authorship and readership of the book in terms of (a) motifs such as Exodus, Sinai, Moses, tabernacle, and (b) such as David, Zion, temple. The article explores the importance of Chronicles as a contribution to the creation of such a social memory within the frame of Yehud. Finally, the article discusses how Chronicles' genealogies reminded the literati for whom the book was primarily written that common social boundaries (including those of gender and ethnicity) have, at times, been transgressed in the past, and that the results of those transgressions have been quite positive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".