Three Sides of a Coin: In Conversation with Ben Zvi And Nogalski, Two Sides of a Coin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a response to E. Ben Zvi and J. D. Nogalski, Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/The Twelve Prophetic Books (Gorgias Press, 2009). Nogalski is a major proponent of the thesis that the Twelve Minor Prophets are a redactional unity, while Ben Zvi is its most forthright sceptic. After summarizing the views of both scholars, the author introduces some considerations from his perspective as a literary critic. In particular, he contends that: i) the question of literary unity is an extremely fraught one; ii)arguments for the unity of the Twelve tend to ignore contrast; and iii) the hypothesis that the Twelve were redacted as a book raises acutely not only the methodological difference between redaction-critical and reader-oriented approaches, but also the question of whether prophets were poets, characterized by literary daring. The article concludes with reflections on models of reading in antiquity, and the opposition between metanarratives and marginality.
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 | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".