MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476200107 · doi:10.1163/9789004232297_020

Pure Stone: Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Purity Practices in Late Second Temple Judaism (Miqwa’ot and Stone Vessels)

2013· book-chapter· en· W2476200107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jürgen Zangenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismExcavationQuarter (Canadian coin)PalestineSecond Temple periodHistoryArchaeologyMountCharacter (mathematics)Jewish cultureAncient historyArtEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Material devices of identity formation and group delineation are some of the most controversial topics in the current debate about the character of the material culture of ancient Palestinian Judaism. Among the most prominent examples are those elements that seem directly indicative of specifically ‘Jewish’ religious practices and beliefs, such as stepped pools (Miqwa’ot) or stone vessels. Stone vessels were hardly noticed before the 1960s, when intensive excavations in Jerusalem by Kathleen Kenyon (Ophel), Magen Broshi (Citadel), Nahman Avigad (Jewish Quarter), Yigal Shiloh (City of David) and Benjamin Mazar (Temple Mount) began to turn up large quantities in different types and forms. Fortunately, these joint scholarly efforts have pushed stone vessels from an often-overlooked piece of material culture to one of the best-known and most intensively discussed indicators of Jewish religious practice in Second Temple period Palestine. Keywords:archaeological evidence; Jewish purity practices; material culture; Miqwa’ot; Second temple Judaism; stone vessels

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207