MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474721536 · doi:10.30965/21967954-00602005

The Seducer and the Rapist

2015· article· en· W2474721536 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Heger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ancient Judaism · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecreeVariety (cybernetics)LawPhilosophySociologyCriminologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rule of Exod 22:15–16 refers unequivocally to an act of seduction and its legal ramifications. Its cognate rule in Deut 22:28–29 is regularly interpreted as referring to an act of rape and its legal ramifications. 11Q19 (11QTa) LXVI:8–11, however, integrates the two biblical decrees, applying the legal implications from Deuteronomy to the seducer. This paper examines the terms in the deuteronomic decree, demonstrating that they do not absolutely indicate violent rape; this, in turn, explains the Temple Scroll ’s treatment of the text as referring to an act of seduction. A variety of practical differences result from the two disparate interpretations. Finally, the paper examines the conceptual distinctions between modern criminal law and ancient Israelite divine law.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.243
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ancient JudaismSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207