MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099569156 · doi:10.1177/1476993x06059008

Ark-Eology: Shifting Emphases in ‘Ark Narrative’ Scholarship

2006· article· en· W2099569156 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Bodner

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrents in Biblical Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeBattleScholarshipHistoryCovenantDeuteronomistLiteratureSubject (documents)Character (mathematics)PhilosophyTheologyArtArchaeologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central character in 1 Samuel 4-6 is the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark is captured in battle, and subsequently wreaks havoc throughout the land of the Philistines until its subsequent return to the borders of Israel. Commonly referred to as the ‘Ark Narrative’ in scholarly literature, 1 Samuel 4-6 has often been viewed as a separate unit within the larger Deuteronomistic History. Although the Ark Narrative has been the subject of considerable scholarly interest, the methodological foci of such studies appear to have undergone a shift in more recent times. While earlier studies espoused a host of different critical approaches, such as tradition-historical, form-critical and redactional methodologies, it would seem that more recent studies have exhibited greater interest in literary appraisal and narrative criticism. This article presents a summary of recent research on the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel 4-6 by 12 scholars: Robert Gordon, Lyle Eslinger, Peter Miscall, Walter Brueggemann, Yehoshua Gitay, Robert Polzin, J.P. Fokkelman, Bruce Birch, E.M.M. Eynikel, Graeme Auld, Barbara Green and Antony F. Campbell, SJ.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.044
Scholarly communication0.0200.017
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrents in Biblical ResearchSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207