The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is author of several books and articles on the Babylonian approach to celestial phenomena.In the preface of the book under review, she writes, 'The primary goal of the study is to locate and define interconnections among the various and diverse parts of the Mesopotamian scribal traditions of celestial science.'The main body of the book consists of a prologue, seven chapters, and an epilogue.The prologue [1-13] explains the book's title, which is derived from a Babylonian idea that the stars are like a writing that expresses messages from the gods.Chapter 1, 'The Historiography of Mesopotamian Science' [14-43], deals with the many, disputed meanings of the term 'science' and states for the purposes of this book, Science. . . is not viewed as emerging from a magical-religious culture, but as fully integrated with it.In the face of the cuneiform evidence, the dichotomy between such hypothetical cultures is artificial and ahistorical.Appropriately, then, chapter 2 [44-97] is called 'Celestial Divination in Context'.It is an introduction to the different kinds of divination used in Babylonia, with particular emphasis on omens derived from the sky.In chapter 3, 'Personal Celestial Divination: The Babylonian Horoscopes ' [98-120], the author turns to a group of texts well known to her.She describes these texts in detail, referring to her book of 1998 and to the various other sources for celestial omens.Chapter 4, 'Sources for Horoscopes in Astronomical Texts' , tries to find where the compilers of the horoscopes could have looked for the information they included.It is most likely that the
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".