Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the heart of Hebrew creativity in the Roman empire after the Jewish wars are brief brilliant fragments of Midrash. Midrash was to some Jews in the Roman empire not unlike jazz to American Blacks: the creativity of a minority defeated and discriminated against, bent but not broken, zealously preserving an inner cultural and religious space where it was free and imagination ruled. Midrash, unlike halakhah, openly describes the tragedies and degradations of the Jews in the years 66–138 CE. It is impossible to establish beyond doubt the degree to which these midrashim from the tannaitic era are historically accurate (see the Note on Texts, pp. 19–20). They appear in works edited or written long after the periods in which they are set. Yet there is little doubt that aggadot are based on real events. Also, it is rarely possible to prove decisively that they are apocryphal. To Goodman (1983), for example, these aggadot stand out as they ‘display a rare feel for history in what are mostly ahistorical writings [and] show remarkable acquaintance with the tactics of Roman armies in quelling revolts’ (pp. 136, 137). As literary fragments, too, they have unusual originality and power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.018 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".