MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118925990 · doi:10.1163/15685179-12341362

Liturgical Progression and the Experience of Transformation in Prayers from Qumran

2015· article· en· W2118925990 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueDead Sea Discoveries · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDead Sea ScrollsPrayerSacrificeJewish studiesHebrew BibleBiblical studiesQuarter (Canadian coin)Second Temple periodHistoryJudaismArtLiteratureTheologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A distinctive feature of the prayer collections found at Qumran is that they have different prayers for each day of the week, month, Sabbath, festival, purification ritual, and so on. In the cases of the Words of the Luminaries and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice , these different prayers construct a liturgical progression over the course of the cycle. I argue that this is to engender a progressive religious experience among the worshipers: over the course of the week towards confident approach to God in preparation for Sabbath, and over the course of Sabbaths in the quarter towards ritual transformation. Moreover, I propose that the Daily Prayers and Festival Prayers may also form an intentional liturgical progression over the cycle. If so, I would also suggest that in the liturgical cycle as a whole, there is in the daily ritual scripted experience of the larger cycles.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.243 · 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