Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Accordance Hebrew Syntax database is the result of a decade of collaborative planning and research. The origin of the project lies in a research grant proposal written by Robert Holmstedt (University of Toronto) in 2007. At that time, two other databases had become accessible to the public: 1) the WIVU Emdros database of the Werkgroep Informatica of the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, now administered by the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computer (see footnote 1) and presented as the ETCBC database (see footnote 2), and 2) the Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text of the Hebrew Bible (see footnote 3). The initial motivation for proposing a third database was straightforward—to be able to use a database created upon a model of Hebrew syntax that differed from the two existing databases.[1]   Yet another syntactic database has been underway since 2009: the Westminster Hebrew Syntax database (http://www.doxologypress.org/sites/groves/B/?page_id=19; accessed June 12, 2017).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".