Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science in Qumran Aramaic Texts primarily explores the astronomical, demonological, divinatory, and medical imaginations of the Aramaic texts found at Khirbet Qumran (e.g., 4Q242, 4Q208–209, and 4Q560), in the Hebrew Bible (Daniel 5), and in Ge’ez translations (e.g., the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book of 1 Enoch). If there is a core argument to the volume, it is that these understudied and fragmentary Aramaic texts must be analyzed on their own terms as witnesses to a distinct scientific tradition. They must not be thoughtlessly lumped together with the Hebrew, often sectarian texts also found at Khirbet Qumran: the Aramaic texts represent their own literary tradition. Nor must they be subordinated to Mesopotamian scientific traditions: the Aramaic texts represent a scientific imagination that, although influenced by Mesopotamia, produced its own innovations. How to cite: Currie, J.M. Science in Qumran Aramaic Texts by Ida Fröhlich. Aestimatio: Sources and Studies in the History of Science (2023) 4: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.33137/aestimatio.v4.42937
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".