MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163038073

Skin Deep: Scratching the Surface of Miriam in Numbers 12

2010· article· en· W2163038073 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yiskah Rosenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen in Judaism A Multidisciplinary e-Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationBrotherOffensiveTheologyJudaismCharacter (mathematics)ArtLiteraturePhilosophyPsychologySociologyCommunication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Biblical story that most extensively explores the character of Miriam is also the one least visible in Jewish ritual life. Chapter 12 of the Book of Numbers tells the story of Miriam speaking with Aaron against their brother Moses. Two alternate versions are offered for the content of their conversation, alerting the reader to a redaction or splicing of different sources. In one, Miriam and Aaron are talking about a “Cushite woman” Moses married; in the other, they complain that they, too, deserve the right to speak directly to God. While what made their conversation so offensive to God is up for Midrashic and scholarly debate, what is clear to commentators is that Miriam is punished for her behavior. After receiving a scolding from God, her skin is turned mztoraat, leprous “as snow.” In a neat show of spiritual delegation, Aaron appeals to Moses on her behalf, and Moses prays to God to heal her with the brief and famous words El na refana la, “please, God, heal her now.” God orders Miriam to go outside the camp for seven days and the people wait for her to be healed before journeying on toward the Promised Land.

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen in Judaism A Multidisciplinary e-JournalSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207