MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297359964 · doi:10.1093/jts/flac121

Die Theologie der Septuaginta/The Theology of the Septuagint. Edited by Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn

2022· article· en· W4297359964 on OpenAlex
Mark Elliott

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Theological Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsWycliffe CollegeUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyBanquetClassicsTheologyHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the fifth volume to appear in the Gütersloher series Handbuch zur Septuaginta/Handbook of the Septuagint. For this volume the editors have selected eight themes within which the material is arranged; they disclaim anything as ‘uncritical’ as a systematic account of Septuagint theology. They do however use the term ‘Septuagint’ or ‘LXX’ as shorthand, while acknowledging that there was probably never one original text—or if somehow there was, it would be impossible to know. Now, 2021 was an annus mirabilis for big collaborative books on the LXX. There is the T&T Clark Handbook of Septuagint Research, edited by William A. Ross and W. Edward Glenny (Bloomsbury, 2021); also The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, edited by Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law (Oxford University Press, 2021). This earlier book has the look of something more dedicated and less introductory: much more a ‘state of the question(s)’. It builds on the sure foundations already laid by S. Kreuzer (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta, the first of the handbooks in this series (2016), and the conference volumes on the LXX of the previous decade. Yet, like most multi-authored works (and this one is pleasingly ‘international’), there is a sense of bringing what each has already prepared to the banquet, rather than something more, well, systematic. Sometimes there is duplication of ‘foods’, and the diet is unbalanced (Martin Meiser on law in the historical books is good but very short). In turn this review is of necessity somewhat selective rather than comprehensive. This is a rich repast and requires more than one sitting to do it justice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.231 · 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