Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introducing the Material 3 3 Overview of the Book 4 4 Defining the "Aramaic Scrolls" 6 5 Defining the Adjective "Priestly" 6 5.1 Priesthood 7 5.2 Cult 8 5.3 Temple 9 6 Situating the Aramaic Scrolls in a Socio-Historical Context 9 7 Polemic or Persuasion? 12 2 The Aramaic Dead Scrolls in Scholarly Context 15 1 Introduction 15 2 Earlier Treatments of the Aramaic Scrolls 17 3 Classifying the Aramaic Scrolls 21 4 The Aramaic Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptures 26 5 The Aramaic Scrolls and Apocalyptic Literature/Apocalypticism 30 6 The Aramaic Scrolls and Foreign Culture 35 7 The Aramaic Scrolls and the Qumran Sectarian Compositions 39 8 Conclusion 42 3 From Enoch to Abraham 44 1 Introduction 44 2 The Book of Watchers 45 2.1 The Priestly Qualities of Enoch and the Angelic Host 46 2.2 Exogamy as a Violation of Priestly Prohibitions 48 2.3 The Earthly Temple, Jerusalem, and the Eschaton 50 2.4 The Heavenly Realm as a Temple 51 2.5 Conclusion 56
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.806 | 0.627 |
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".