MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233098457 · doi:10.30965/21967954-00802004

Ezekiel’s Exagoge and the Politics of Hellenistic Theatre

2017· article· en· W4233098457 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Keddie, J.G. MacLellan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ancient Judaism · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsScholarshipPerformative utteranceHegemonyIdeologyContext (archaeology)Power (physics)SociologyJudaismLiteratureGreek tragedyTragedy (event)AestheticsClassicsHistoryLawArtPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate over the Jewish, Greek, or mixed social settings of Ezekiel’s Exagoge often focuses on whether the play was intended for performance in a Greek theatre. Consequently, much scholarship has attempted to define the play’s import to a reconstructed audience. This effort, while fruitful, has distracted scholars from the ways that this tragedy resonated with the broader parameters and ramifications of theatre culture in its particular social context. Our paper redirects the discussion by parsing the ways that the Exagoge engages with the theatre culture of Ptolemaic Alexandria. Literary and epigraphic evidence reveals that Hellenistic performance culture, no less than its Classical forebears, was markedly political. Festivals, including the penteteric Ptolemaieia in Alexandria, were an important means for communicating the ideology of the Hellenistic royal dynasties. Drawing on Catherine Bell’s understanding of “redemptive hegemony” as the way that human practices simultaneously convey an understanding of power relations in society and a vision for strategic empowerment, we interrogate the ways that the Exagoge both affirms and critiques Ptolemaic politics by invoking the same performative setting usually exploited as a means of royal acclamation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ancient JudaismSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207