MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328960958 · doi:10.18647/2881/jjs-2009

Rabbis as Jurists: On the Representation of Past and Present Legal Institutions in the Mishnah

2009· article· en· W2328960958 on OpenAlex
Naftali S. Cohn

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jewish Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismRepresentation (politics)LawHistorySociologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of the growing consensus that the rabbis of Late Antiquity were not a powerful and dominant group with roots in the time of the Temple, this article reexamines the portrayal of the rabbinic present and the rabbinic past in the Mishnah. The Mishnah, I propose, pictures the rabbis acting as jurists—modelled on Roman jurists—who issue opinions primarily on matters of Jewish ritual law. This claim for a legal-judicial role for the rabbis in post-destruction Jewish society, furthermore, shapes the rabbinic memory of the past in which the Court of Temple times is the predecessor to the rabbis and in which this Court has ultimate authority over Temple ritual. In their construction of both the present and the past, the rabbis make a powerful claim for authority over ritual law and ritual practice, an authority which it seems they did not yet have.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.232 · 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