MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385278345 · doi:10.1177/1476993x231185789

A History of Research on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

2023· article· en· W4385278345 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueCurrents in Biblical Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilPennsylvania State University
KeywordsDead Sea ScrollsPeriod (music)Second Temple periodLiteratureHistoryJudaismEpigraphyJewish historyBiblical studiesClassicsAncient historyJewish studiesArtHebrew BibleArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls have attracted increasing scholarly attention since their official publication was completed in 2009. These manuscripts, representing about thirty distinct compositions, attest to the existence of a previously unknown Jewish Aramaic scribal culture that flourished in the early Hellenistic period (ca. late fourth to mid-second centuries BCE). The Aramaic Scrolls thus have the potential to illuminate an otherwise poorly understood period of Jewish history. In this article, I discuss the various scholarly approaches to their language, literary content, and social location, with a special emphasis on trends in the secondary literature since the late 2000s. This article will also provide interested students and scholars with an overview of the major themes and concerns found throughout the Aramaic Scrolls.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.575
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.081 · 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