MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470167679

The settlement of Jerusalem's western hill and the City's status in iron age II revisited

2005· article· en· W2470167679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Avraham Faust

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Quarter (Canadian coin)ExcavationJudaismHistoryChronologyArchaeologyInner cityAncient historyGeographyHumanitiesEthnologyArtEconomic geography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accumulation of new data from recent excavations and surveys, both within and outside Jerusalem, and especially the publication of the first two volumes of the final report of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Avigad/Geva 2000; Geva [ed.] 2003), call for a new evalua tion of Iron Age Jerusalem. Geva, who is publishing the Jewish Quarter excavations, has recently offered a thought provoking synthesis (below). Triggered by Geva's interpretations, along with the accumulation of the new data, it is the aim of the present paper to reanalyze the urban fabric and demographic composition of Jerusalem, and especially its Western Hill, during Iron Age II. The first part of the paper will, in light of the above, reexamine Geva's suggestions. The second part of the paper will discuss additional evidence for Jerusalem's status, mainly from finds discovered outside the city walls. The third part will reconstruct the 8th century city, including social aspects, settlement, and urban processes. The fourth part will discuss the chronology of these settlement processes, and the fifth part will reexamine the demography of Jerusalem at its height.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-VereinsSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207