MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896766067 · doi:10.1163/2589255x-02701010

The Role of Memory in Vorlage-based Transmission: Evidence from Erasures and Corrections

2018· article· en· W2896766067 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Vroom

Bibliographic record

VenueTextus · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopyingMemory formationTransmission (telecommunications)Process (computing)Computer sciencePsychologyLawNeuroscienceTelecommunicationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article argues that the act of Vorlage-based copying involves a dynamic interplay between both memory and Vorlage. While numerous scholars argue that memory played a significant role in textual transmission in ancient Israel and early Judaism, few have explicitly discussed the role that memory plays in the act of copying a manuscript. This article identifies with greater precision the point in the copying process at which a scribe may rely on long-term memory, rather than his Vorlage. The article will examine three erasures in three Dead Sea scrolls that demonstrate the phenomenon of memory-cued errors, in which a scribe’s long-term memory caused mistakes in the copying process. Not only do these memory-cued errors illustrate the role of memory in the copying process, they also allow for a much clearer and more nuanced understanding of the nature of textual transmission.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.268
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.268
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTextusSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207