MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186028862 · doi:10.25159/2663-6573/9046

The Book of Jonah and the Hermeneutics of Ferdinand E. Deist

2021· article· en· W3186028862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Izak J.J. Spangenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Semitics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipCourageOld TestamentQuarter (Canadian coin)Order (exchange)HermeneuticsClassicsCitationHistoryPhilosophyLiteratureArt historyTheologyArtLawArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ferdinand E. Deist (1944–1997) was a critical scholar and a prolific author, and had an immeasurable influence on Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern scholarship in South Africa during the last quarter of the previous century. Although he never claimed to be working within the new paradigm which dawned in Old Testament studies towards the end of the nineteenth century, it is evident that he was fully at home within this paradigm. The article does not discuss all Deist’s publications in order to vindicate the claim. It only discusses his earliest publications. His treatment of Jonah opened the doors for many of his students to follow in his wake and to acquaint themselves with historical-critical methods of studying the Bible. Willie van Heerden, who is honoured with this essay, is but one of many postgraduate students who benefitted from Deist’s expertise, courage, and wisdom.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for SemiticsSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207