MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240492950 · doi:10.1163/157006310x529236

Onias IV and the δέσποτος ερός: Placing Antiquities 13.62-73 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure

2010· article· en· W4240492950 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Last

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Judaism · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Rheumatology Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJosephusNarrativeHistoricity (philosophy)Context (archaeology)HistoryJewish studiesLiteratureClassicsArtArchaeologyPoliticsLawJudaismPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Josephus’ narrative of Onias IV in Ant. 13.62-73 is an account of a Judean refugee who flees to Egypt and manages to acquire land in both Alexandria and Heliopolis. He is also given the authority to construct a temple on his Heliopolis property, which Josephus describes to have previously been δέσποτος. This is a technical term used in the papyri and by classical authors to designate ownerless property, which could be acquired legally only by purchase at the public auction and, in the Roman period, also directly from the idios logos. Scholars have long endeavoured to reconstruct the history behind Josephus’ narrative of the temple of Onias, but they have yet to investigate the function of this technical term within the larger narrative of Ant. 13.62-73, nor the insights that it might provide regarding the historicity of the account. The present article enters into the world of Ptolemaic land tenure in order to contextualize Josephus’ account of Onias’ acquisition of an ownerless temple. It demonstrates that Josephus’ story of Onias’ temple is more nuanced than previously thought.

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)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of JudaismSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207