Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task, Past and Present, J.S. Kloppenborg & J.H. Newman (Eds.) : book review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
John Kloppenborg is Professor in the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto and Judith Newman is Associate Professor of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at Emmanuel College, University of Toronto. In this volume of essays they include a select group of scholarly contributors who offer a variety of considered opinions on various issues that concern the editing of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (LXX and NT). Many of the collected ideas and insights offered, which derive from a 2007 Conference on Editorial Problems (University of Toronto), are innovative in the fields of textual criticism and canon composition, and several proposals may also be rather controversial in their claims and implications. However, all of the essays are thought-provoking and helpful for enabling one to better understand some of the salient questions, complexities, and difficulties that confront those who research and write about these subjects. There may be those in the field of biblical studies who tend to take such matters for granted, but that is not a constructive policy if one wishes to delve more deeply into the composition, transmission, and publication of the very Scripture texts that one desires to better understand, analyze, and/or discourse about.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".