MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134983080 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2014.v14.a8

Analyzing זה Grammar and Reading זה Texts of Ps 68:9 and Judg 5:5

2014· article· en· W3134983080 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert D. Holmstedt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenitive caseLinguisticsDeixisSemitic languagesPluralBiblical HebrewGrammarHebrewGrammaticalizationPhilosophyHistoryArabicBiblical studiesHebrew Bible

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grammar of ancient Hebrew זֶה straightforwardly accords to cross-linguistically attested patterns of demonstratives. זֶה and its feminine singular and common plural counterparts function primarily as deictic pronouns or deictic nominal modifiers. A small set of examples indicate that some stage of Hebrew witnessed the grammaticalization of זֶה as a relative marker and a copular pronoun. However, for over a century, another function of זֶה has been proposed and become entrenched within Hebrew grammatical analysis—that זֶה follows other Semitic languages in functioning as a “genitive” marker. By addressing all the relevant data, including the two most commonly cited examples of a “genitive” זֶה, Ps 68:9 and Judg 5:5, as well as the comparative Semitic argument, I demonstrate that there are no cogent reasons for assigning to זֶה the role of a “genitive” marker.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hebrew ScripturesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207