MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405654480 · doi:10.1111/rec3.70008

Jewish Divination in the Greco–Roman Era

2024· article· en· W4405654480 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReligion Compass · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivinationAstrologyPhysiognomyHebrewJudaismOracleDead Sea ScrollsClassicsLiteratureRoman EmpireHistoryArtHebrew BibleBiblical studiesSociologyComputer scienceAnthropologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the divinatory methods the Jews used to address their questions in the Greco–Roman era. Scholars have previously examined how authors of the Hebrew Bible are aware of numerous divinatory techniques. The texts of the Greco–Roman era, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, preserve even more references illuminating the ancients' interest in divination. In this article, I first address how the texts of the Greco–Roman era present people inquiring about the divine will through inspiration, the lot oracle, astrology, physiognomy, and death oracle. I argue that it was not indifferent which method an individual chose for their inquiry but that each technique served purposes that the ancients knew. As people could typically not access all methods, both the technique and its accessibility were considered when individuals decided how to inquire about their questions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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