MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Commentaries on the Later Books of the Hebrew Bible

2012· book-chapter· en· W3133852238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Avraham Grossman

Bibliographic record

VenueLiverpool University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorahHebrewLiteratureQuarter (Canadian coin)GrammarCharacter (mathematics)Hebrew BiblePhilosophyHistoryPerfectionBiblical HebrewClassicsLinguisticsJudaismArtBiblical studiesTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter assesses Rashi's commentaries on the later books of the Hebrew Bible. In his commentaries on the later books of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings, collectively referred to by the Hebrew acronym Nakh ), Rashi made extensive use of rabbinic material, though to a lesser degree than in his commentary on the Torah. About a quarter of the commentary on the Torah is original material; in the commentaries on Nakh , the figure is about two-thirds, the amount varying with the nature of each book and its commentary. Rashi makes less use of midrashic language, and the commentaries differ somewhat in character too. In addition, he gives more consideration to historical background, to literary devices, and, especially, to anti-Christian polemic. The chapter then looks at how questions of language and grammar, as well as references to daily life, receive considerable attention in Rashi's commentaries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.132 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiverpool University Press eBooksSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207