Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to read closely the tannaitic material pertaining to judicial discretion and legal justice with the understanding that the rabbis are not simply clarifying certain specialized questions about courtroom procedure but are seriously engaging a core facet of Roman imperial and Hellenistic ideology: the benefits and deficits of the rule of law. It has been noted that as opposed to later, talmudic rabbis, the Tanaaim are particularly strict with regard to personal, judicial discretion – in other words, that rather than strike a balance between law and wisdom, they allow only for rule-based decision making. This article suggests that the Tanaaim not only opt for rule-bound decision making, but that they do so with a full awareness of what is lost from broader ideals of social justice when judges are required to abide, almost mechanically, by the rules. The Tanaaim thereby contributed to contemporary questions in political philosophy from the point of view of disempowered Roman provincials for whom the rule of law meant less as political propaganda and more as a measure of stability in uncertain times.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".