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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

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