MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208587796

An analysis of Philo’s Exegesis of the Sotah Ritual

2014· article· en· W2208587796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susanna Towers

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen in Judaism A Multidisciplinary e-Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdulteryExegesisPhilosophyLiteratureContext (archaeology)JosephusWifeTrial by ordealSoulHistoryJudaismArtTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Normal 0 0 1 162 812 13 1 1136 11.1539 0 0 0 This paper aims to explore Philo of Alexandria’s perception of gender through his writings on the Sotah ritual described in Numbers 5:11-31, the trial by ordeal of the wife suspected of adultery by her husband. Philo’s writings on the Sotah ritual appear in his texts “The Special Laws” and “The Allegories of the Sacred Laws.” These commentaries are analyzed alongside near contemporaneous Tannaitic texts (the Mishnah and Tosefta Tractates relating to the ritual) and Josephus’ account of the ritual in “The Antiquities of the Jews.” Philo’s texts are examined for innovative themes and interpretations of the Sotah ritual in the context of these alternative commentaries. It is argued that Philo’s treatment of the Sotah ritual reveals a tendency towards a dismissal of the central role of the woman in the ritual. It is suggested that the Sotah herself is alternately dissolved into body parts or subsumed into aspects of the male soul, reflecting Philo’s preoccupation with purely male spiritual development.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
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

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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