MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mourning Women, the Voice of God, and the Limits of Lament: Women’s Songs of Lament in Jeremiah

2023· article· en· W4396528850 on OpenAlexaff
Lissa M. Wray Beal

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin for Biblical Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamentHistoryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The book of Jeremiah contains metaphors depicting Israel and Zion as a woman. These include the city as a mourning woman (4:19–21; 10:20). Real mourning women are addressed in Jer 9:17–22, following laments variously attributed to Jeremiah and/or Yahweh (8:18–9:2, 10). Working with the (MT) canonical form and engaging the insights of trauma studies, this article traces linguistic and thematic connections between the two passages before tracing similar connections to Rachel’s lament (Jer 31). The mourning women in Jer 9 serve a societal role by giving voice to lament; this effective power is affirmed by trauma studies. When read alongside the lament by Jeremiah and/or Yahweh, this article notes the women also take up a prophetic role as with Jeremiah they embody and express Yahweh’s own pathos. In ch. 31, the mourning women are metaphorically instantiated in the eponymous mother who also voices Yahweh’s pathos yet remains uncomforted. This study points to the hope that arises from Yahweh’s identification with his people in the pathos expressed by prophet, mourning women, and Rachel. Ultimately, Yahweh’s identification with his people, and his words of hope offer comfort to unrequited lament.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin for Biblical ResearchSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207