Bibliographic record
Abstract
ore than four hundred years after the kingdom of Judah was destroyed .IV.Land its inhabitants led off into exile, a sovereign state arose once again with its capital in Jerusalem and its sanctuary on Zion.The events which occasioned this new kingdom were recorded in the book of First Maccabees.Composed under the auspices of the royal court, First Maccabees is an example of history-writing, that is, it is a narrative of past events, but its status as critical historiography has been challenged by scholars.This challenge to its critical stance is not accompanied by a corresponding criticism of its presentation of historical data; First Maccabees is generally accepted as a reliable account of the first generation of Hasmonaean leadership.In order to achieve this standard of historicity, the author of First Maccabees must have employed some critical methods in the composition of his text, most basic criteria for the use and examination of sources.This technique can be seen most clearly in the places in the text where source documents have been inserted whole.This paper will examine the historical context of the diplomatic correspondence embedded within the narrative, its inscription in the text, the authenticity of the documents themselves, and their accessibility for our author.The dating of First Maccabees relies upon two events.The terminus post quem is the last event recorded, the death of Simon and the ascension of his son, John Hyrcanus, in 135/4 B.C.E.The terminus ante quem is the invasion of Pompey in 63 B.C.E., after which point expressing positive relations with the Romans was no longer an option.Several scholars give a date surrounding the death of John Hyrcanus in 104, citing "xat xa kouid Ttbv k6yo)v Icoawou" (1M 16.23) as an indication his reign was over when
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".