MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159891082 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2005.v5.a19

“The Hand of a Woman”: Deborah and Yael (Judges 4)

2005· article· en· W2159891082 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elie Assis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictoryNarrativeIdentity (music)FemininityDeborah numberSociologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyLiteratureLawGender studiesArtPsychologyAestheticsPoliticsPolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the role of Yael in Judges 4. It argues that Yael’s central position in the narrative is meant to shed light on Deborah's prophetic image. Yael is thus Deborah’s “hand” – an extension of Deborah who carries out her prophecy: “for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hand of a woman” (v. 9). Yael overshadows both Sisera and Barak. She controls both men; she decides who will be defeated and who will be victorious. Deborah’s prophecy does not refer merely to the identity of the killer but also to the way in which the woman achieves her victory. Yael confronts a strong warrior, a general; physically she is inferior to him; she uses her femininity to defeat him. "While sexuality is a featured element of the Deborah narrative, it is so exclusively with reference to the actions of Yael. Deborah, the focus of the story, is, to be sure, a womanly figure. But her role in the story is purely that of a woman of God. It is she who reveals the hand of God in "the hand of a woman".

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0180.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hebrew ScripturesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207