MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406252016 · doi:10.1163/15685152-20241796

‘A Considerable Disturbance in the Holy Place’: Ritual Mourning as Efficacious Spatial Subversion in 3 Maccabees

2025· article· en· W4406252016 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew R. Krause

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblical Interpretation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPtolemy's table of chordsJudaismSubversionNarrativeHistorySociologyArtLiteratureArchaeologyClassicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 3 Maccabees, the timely prayers of two priests, Simon and Eleazar, save the people and their various holy spaces. However, one related ritual element that is often overlooked is the socially disruptive mourning rites of vulnerable women. These performances immediately precede both highly efficacious prayers and accompany the arrests of those Jewish people who resisted Ptolemy’s decree. The cities, their various urban social functions, childcare, and marital rituals are all disrupted in a hyperbolic description of the disorder caused by Ptolemy’s wanton attacks on explicitly Jewish spaces. In all three cases, the texts present a highly stylized description of mourning performed in ways that disrupt and subvert the spatial expectations of the urban environs of the narrative’s setting. This disorder is best understood as a ritual focusing that leads to the dramatic prayers of the two priests that counteract Ptolemy’s spatial trespasses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblical InterpretationSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207