MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2508678912 · doi:10.1057/9780230596054_15

Hebrew and Stoicism

2000· article· en· W2508678912 on OpenAlexaff
Moshe Aberbach, David Aberbach

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStoicismParallelsPhilosophyJudaismHebrewJewish thoughtJewish literatureHebrew BibleRoman EmpirePeriod (music)LiteratureClassicsHistoryEpistemologyJewish studiesTheologyBiblical studiesArtAestheticsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The movement toward recovery from defeat in the first century CE and after may be seen in the degree to which Hebrew literature of the period has parallels with — and might be influenced by — Stoic philosophy. Stoicism existed already in the biblical age but by the time of the Tannaim became the prevalent philosophy of the upper classes throughout the Roman empire.1 The most profound and enduring monument to Stoicism, Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, was written roughly in the same period as the Mishna. There are many parallels between Judaism and Stoicism (Hengel, 1981; Feldman, 1993), not least because Stoicism deals with moral questions which are central to Judaism and is, therefore, closer to Judaism than any other philosophy in the ancient world. Lieberman (1963) points out that many fundamental teachings of Stoicism appear in some form in the Bible. Whatever the relationship between Stoicism and rabbinic Judaism, certain ideas associated with Stoic thought appear more frequently and intensely during and after the tannaitic era than previously.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→