MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169016746 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a8

Jonah, Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A Response to Jakob Wöhrle

2009· article· en· W2169016746 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Klaas Spronk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)LiteraturePhilosophyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In discussion with Wöhrle's analysis in the previous article of this set, it is maintained that both the book of Jonah and the book of Nahum should be read as a unit. The book of Jonah was probably written as a reaction to the negative view on foreign peoples found in Joel 4:2. The writer of the book of Jonah builds his case upon the authoritative text from Exodus 34. Both in terms of form and content, he is also inspired by the book of Nahum. Therefore, the repeated use of Exodus 34:6-7 in these texts needs not be ascribed to a separate layer, but is probably part of a process of one book reacting to the other.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.025
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0100.019
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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