MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386572887 · doi:10.1177/09518207221137072

Institutional differences in Old-Greek and Theodotionic Susanna

2023· article· en· W4386572887 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew R. Krause

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityNarrativeJudaismPresentation (obstetrics)Composition (language)HistoryPoint (geometry)SociologySpace (punctuation)ClassicsLiteratureLawPolitical sciencePoliticsArtLinguisticsPhilosophyArchaeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the elaborative nature of Theodotionic Susanna, it is not merely an expansion. The narrative details of the different versions betray consistent institutional differences. One notable difference is the near elimination of the public synagogue as a place of assembly, and instead this source speaks of a more generalized, associational assembly that meets in Joachim’s house. The Theodotionic version’s associational, domestic assembly space is closer to the polity of a diasporic collegia assembly. Conversely, in the Old Greek, the perverse elders preside over an assembly building, which is at one point designated as “the synagogue of the city” (OG Sus 28). The Old Greek’s emphasis on a civic synagogue is closer to Palestinian Jewish texts, despite the exilic setting of this story. While such institutional designations are more of a spectrum than a binary difference, such difference in outlook offers invaluable data regarding the contexts of the two versions of this Danielic composition and the parallel presentation of these two different types of synagogues at such an early date is significant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueJournal for the Study of the PseudepigraphaSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207