Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n ancient Near Eastern societies, texts concerning the "beginnings" provided the reader with a means to understand and conceptualize the notion of time in an era that was often intertwined with that of the deities.U. Cassuto notes that both the ancient Near Eastern and Greek traditions sought to emphasize an "intermixing" between the human world and that of the gods or the divine when speaking of their primordial histories.1 However, Cassuto argues that the tradition found in the book of Genesis for the most part discards this "mythical technique" 2 of recounting primordial history.In fact, he contends that the authors of Genesis do not allow the boundaries between the Godhead and mankind to be blurred at all.Rather, the authors "see [k] to emphasize that human civilisation was of human origin" and not intermixed with that of the gods or the divine.3 This argument, however, is not maintained by all scholars.J. Blenkinsopp argues that, quite to the contrary, the "idiom of myth" is a literary device utilized by the authors of Genesis to write their primordial history in a similar fashion to that of other ancient Near Eastern societies.4 Furthermore, Blenkinsopp stipulates that the transition from myth to history can best be explained by taking a closer look at the lifespans of the patriarchs as the reader moves from mythical time to historical time.He moves on to suggest that this transition is made evident by the "steep fall-off in human life expectancy," which marks the end of the "story of origins." 5 1.Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978), 188. 2. Cassuto, "Commentary on Genesis," 188; For Cassuto, what constitutes mythical tradition is a form of history telling that incorporates the gods and heroes (normally revered as semigods), and their role in forming and shaping the outcome of human events ("Commentary on Genesis," 188).3. Cassuto, "Commentary on Genesis," 188. 4.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".