MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408170789 · doi:10.11647/obp.0463.15

Rabbinic Hebrew kyd ~ ʿkyd: Insights from Palestinian Arabic

2025· book-chapter· en· W4408170789 on OpenAlexaff
Mila Neishtadt

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Friends Of Tel-Aviv University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsArabicHebrewPhilosophyClassicsArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the meaning, etymology, and textual variants of the term כיד kyd ‘press weight-stone’ in Rabbinic Hebrew, as preserved in Mishnaic and Talmudic manuscripts. The study highlights its correlation with the Palestinian Arabic term lakkīd, denoting a screw weight-stone used in olive presses, and its implications for reconstructing the original meaning and form of the Hebrew term. Through detailed analysis of manuscript corrections, scribal practices, and linguistic processes like back-formation and alternations of consonants, the study reconstructs the plural form הכידים h-kydym as the most likely original version. Comparative evidence from archaeological findings, Rabbinic traditions, and Palestinian Arabic supports the identification of the term as a reference to weight-stones in traditional oil presses. The article explores broader linguistic phenomena, such as alternations between ʾalef and ʿayin, offering insights into Rabbinic Hebrew’s interaction with regional Semitic dialects.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Book PublishersSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207