MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394629675 · doi:10.5508/jhs.2015.v15.8

Sequences of Verbal Forms and Taxis in Biblical Hebrew

2015· article· en· W4394629675 on OpenAlex
Giovanni Lenzi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hebrew Scriptures · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxisLinguisticsHebrew BiblePsychologyPhilosophyLiteratureBiblical studiesArtEngineeringTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents an empirical collection of Biblical Hebrew verbal forms, arguing that at one stage of the Hebrew language syntax was based on a combination of sequences and taxis (the chronological relations between two “actions”). The suffix conjugation and the prefix conjugation had different functions in a past/anterior sequence and in a non-past/non-anterior sequence. In a past/anterior sequence, the suffix conjugation denoted a co-ordinate element, while the prefix conjugation denoted a sub-ordinate element. In a non-past/non-anterior sequence, on the other hand, the prefix conjugation denoted a co-ordinate element, whereas the suffix conjugation denoted a sub-ordinate element. This syntax was identical in direct speech, subordinate clauses, narration and poetry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.268
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