MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381144876 · doi:10.1080/09018328.2023.2222037

“Your Gates”—Evoking a Landscape of Fortified Cities in Deuteronomy: Meanings, Implications, and Comparative Considerations with Other Constructions of the Israelite Past

2023· article· en· W4381144876 on OpenAlexaff
Ehud Ben Zvi

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of the Old Testament · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityIdeologyHistoriographyHistoryLiteratureSpace (punctuation)AestheticsSociologyLawPhilosophyLinguisticsPoliticsArtArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is about constructions of internal territorial space and its ideological implications. It discusses the lay of the land of the Israelite society that the literati “saw” when reading Deuteronomy. It focuses on the horizontal, non-hierarchical arrangement of an array of cities that so strongly characterizes the book. Then it addresses what the preference for this array suggests in terms of the polity that Deuteronomy conjures and how this preference relates to both central ideological tenets of the book and additional features of its imagined polity. Neither the imaginary landscape of the Israelite polity nor the polity itself evoked by Deuteronomy were consistent with those evoked by any of the “historiographical” works in Yehud. As a result, its literati had to assume either that such a landscape was never actually fulfilled in any period of the past or try to conform Deuteronomy’s landscape to other past-shaping, ideological texts (and related memories) that existed in their core repertoire, or both, in a complementary, balancing way.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of the Old TestamentSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207