Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the lacking communicational equivalence between the prophet and his contemporaries created by the ‘command not to comprehend’ (Isaiah 6). The structure of non-comprehension is regarded as a necessary result of the prophetic word and describes the impossibility of comprehending what Isaiah himself could only understand after the event of his purification (Isa 6:6-7). Prophetic message and its rejection are thus complementary elements. This structure of a lacking communicative equivalence is to be illustrated in Isaiah’s prophetic activity. Isaianic prophecy consists of several different modes of language that bear relevance regarding the topic of non-comprehension: 1. The use and function of metaphoric language: Isaiah uses the metaphors as an instrument of defamiliarization. At the same time, metaphorical language encloses a destructive element, since it destroys fundamental ideas and beliefs Isaiah’s contemporaries still adhere to. 2. The quotations: The quotations fulfill a very important task within prophetic language. Not only is the prophet’s theo-political view of history handed down by means of these quotations, but also the confrontation with the prophetic word and thereby the people’s status of non-comprehension. The process of the literary tradition of the prophetic heritage includes the confrontation and preserves it for later generations. 3. Fictitious realms: By means of fictitious elements, the prophet creates a “theo-political” sphere over against the “geo-political appearance”, thereby giving his God the possibility of escaping the previous patterns of expectation. In view of the political and military circumstances at the end of the 8th century, the prophetic fiction represents a kind of Judean “counterpropaganda” for later generations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".