MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W236776375

Amos in Song and Book Culture

2006· article· en· W236776375 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueShofar · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryLiteratureNarrativeScholarshipComposition (language)RedactionPhilosophyHistoryArtLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

in Song and Book Culture, by Joyce Rilett Wood. Journal for Study of Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 337. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. 256 pp. $80.00. This monograph, based on author's 1993 Toronto School of Theology dissertation, presents new of book of Amos. Distinguishing two editions of book, Wood regards each as a complete literary composition by different (p. 11). The first is cycle of seven poems featuring coherent narrative sequence composed by himself, while second relates to first as commentary to text. In Introduction, Wood claims that while book's literary inconsistencies rule out notion of single authorship, complex redaction-critical analyses also fail because of lack of objective criteria for assigning material to different historical strata. Thus rejecting assumption of multiple editorial levels, Wood maintains that notion of single exilic editor preserved Amos's prophetic text but thoroughly rewrote it and converted it into book with ten parts suffices to resolve book's literary problems (p. 15). Chapter 1 investigates Amos's written prophecy, which is understood as continuous poetic text of seven poems, in which subsequent poems develop thoughts of previous ones. Wood's identification of these poems is based largely on distinction by previous scholarship between prophet's original words and subsequent redactional additions. Occasionally, however, she departs from received wisdom, as for instance in case of 6:1 where Zion is taken to be authentic. The second chapter on Writing and Editing in Amos looks for traces of intrusion, which suggest presence of second stage of literary composition. Wood accepts common redaction-critical notion according to which ivdacrional additions are an attempt to adapt old text to changed historical circumstances, arguing that the reviser is not simply an editor but an author who totally rewrites original text by integrating it into new system of interpretation (p. 47). The editorial is thus understood not as separate composition but as a running commentary on Amos's [original] (p. 47), which often stands in tension with or opposition to original version (p. 48). Yet, end product is a single homogenized text with unified argument (p. 94). In Chapter 3, Wood develops her view that Amos's prophecy did not originate in numerous individual speeches or oracles but in song cycle meant to be performed before live audience. According to Wood, this song cycle had been composed for performance at marzeah feast, which she regards as counterpart to Greek poetic symposia of 7th and 6th centuries BCE. Rather controversially, Amos's original text is thus attributed to seventh-century Jerusalem rather than eighth-century Israel. However, with transition from song to book culture traces of live performance were removed, song cycle was converted into piece of history writing, and was turned from poet into larger-than-life prophet. Yet these were not only momentous modifications: book's exilic editor also turned original tragic poetry into U-shaped plot of comedy, movement Wood believes to be evident not only in book's overall structure (which in 9:11-15 ends on note of salvation) but also in its individual parts. …

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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