MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111518883 · doi:10.23865/noasp.110.ch13

Hva er det med Gilead? Det bibelske navnet Gilead i moderne romaner

2020· book-chapter· en· W3111518883 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bente Afset

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)LiteratureSubject matterOld TestamentHistoryNorwegianOriginal meaningPhilosophyArtLinguisticsSociologyCurriculumEpistemologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two famous contemporary novelists, the Canadian writer Margaret Atwood and the American writer Marilynne Robinson, both use the biblical name Gilead in their novels. Atwood names the dystopian republic in The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) and The Testament (2019) Gilead, and Robinson uses Gilead both as title for her 2004 novel as well as a name for the little Midwestern town depicted there. Why Gilead? What possible meaning is gained in these modern texts by using this biblical name? To try to answer these questions the article first investigates texts associated with the toponym Gilead in the Hebrew Bible to elucidate possible meaning attached to it there, and secondly the meaning attached to Gilead in the novels. Inspirational for this investigation is the new subject curriculum for KRLE in Fagfornyelsen 2020 where learning outcome is described in very general terms. This means that for instance future Norwegian students’ biblical knowledge may be unequal throughout the country and most likely weaker than at present. Does that matter when it comes to appreciating such novels as the ones discussed here?

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.009

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207