Рецензия на: Fuller D. J. A Discourse Analysis of Habakkuk. Leiden; Boston (Mass.): Brill, 2020. (Studia Semitica Neerlandica; vol. 72). XVIII, 381 p. ISBN9789004408883
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В 2020 г. издательство «Brill» в серии «Studia Semitica Neerlandica» выпустило монографию канадского библеиста Давида Фуллера «Дискурсивный анализ книги Аввакума». Обзор содержания данного исследования предлагается в настоящей рецензии. Д. Фуллер — доктор философии, преподаватель Ветхого Завета в теологическом колледже МакМастера, который является структурным подразделением Университета МакМастера, расположенного в городе Гамильтон канадской провинции Онтарио.... In 2020, the Brill publishing house published a monograph by Canadian biblical scholar David Fuller, A Discursive Analysis of the Book of Habakkuk, in the Studia Semitica Neerlandica series. An overview of the content of this research is offered in this review. D. Fuller is a Ph.D. lecturer in Old Testament at McMaster Theological College, which is a structural unit of McMaster University, located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada....
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.007 |
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".