MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302360675 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a10

Suspense and Anticipation in 1 Samuel 9:1–14

2009· article· en· W4302360675 on OpenAlex
Rachelle Gilmour

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationAnticipation (artificial intelligence)NarrativeSurpriseCulminationLiteratureSubject (documents)PhilosophyHistoryArtAestheticsPsychologyComputer scienceCommunicationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 Sam 9:1-10:16 has been the subject of intense literary critical interest as scholars have grappled with the sudden appearance of the prophet Samuel in a folk tale of Saul searching for his lost donkeys. Literary approaches to the text have proposed that Samuel's entry into the story is a literary device designed to surprise the reader. This paper demonstrates that Samuel's entrance into the narrative is not in isolation but is the culmination of suspense and anticipation built up throughout 1 Sam 9:1-14. This suspense is generated through a series of episodes which each consist of a pattern of anticipation, delay and resolution. The recognition of this structure of suspense allows for a reinterpretation of two anomalous verses within the narrative: the list of place names in 9:4 and the editorial insertion of 9:9.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.234 · 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