MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390718443 · doi:10.5508/jhs29601

Joel 2:17 and the Calamities of Joel 1:2-2:11

2024· article· en· W4390718443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Doren Snoek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningSyntaxHistoryPlague (disease)LiteraturePolitical scienceSociologyLinguisticsPhilosophyArtAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between the calamities of Joel 1:2-2:11 remains an unsettled problem. This article contributes to discussion of the problem by attending to what the speakers in the text envision as the outcome of those calamities. Joel 2:17 is proposed as an interpretive aid, and suggestions that the wording there is ambiguous or polysemous are examined; a close analysis of syntax there and of the valence of transformative נת״נ affirms the reading of the ancient versions over against claims of inclarity or wordplay. Although the locust plague is juxtaposed and metaphorically intermingled with the invading army, the text’s speakers at this point envision the outcome of the calamities not only as agricultural disaster but also as foreign domination. While in the text the agricultural disaster is a fait accompli, the second calamity may still be averted. The possibilities of agricultural restoration and foreign domination become literary goads; the addressees are spurred to act in their own self-interest, which is entangled with the deity’s.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hebrew ScripturesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207