MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333687608 · doi:10.1177/0309089213492812

The ‘Hymn’ of Amos: An Ancient Flood Narrative

2013· article· en· W2333687608 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the Old Testament · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsVictoria Park
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHymnCovenantNarrativeLamentLiteratureFlood mythIsraelitesVocabularyHistoryTheologyPhilosophyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison of Amos with Sumerian City-Lament (SCL) reveals that SCL was likely used as the literary template for Amos’ prophecy. Amos also contains references to the flood, used as a covenant-curse to warn Israel of her treaty violations. This article compares these flood passages, 4.13; 5.8+9; 8.8; 9.5+6, (described by scholars as ‘hymnic’), with SCL, Genesis’ flood account, and Job 9.5–10, a similar flood-like hymn, in order to determine common vocabulary and themes. Analyzing the Amos hymn's vocabulary roots reveals an ancient narrative source. Exploration of the passage's literary connections to Amos in terms of a ‘flood covenant-curse',’, demonstrates why such literature was utilized. This article also discusses a new proposal that Amos’ hymn should be extended to incorporate a fragment at 7.4.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of the Old TestamentSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207