Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The text of the Hebrew Bible—or, rather, the texts of the books of the Hebrew Bible—developed extensively over millennia, even into the 21st century. The earliest Hebrew evidence shows that the text existed in many forms in antiquity. Translations into Greek and Aramaic brought the Hebrew Bible to other cultures and contexts and spawned further translation and cultural transfer. At the same time, various Hebrew traditions of the text—including medieval Masoretic manuscripts and the Samaritan manuscripts and reading tradition—continued to develop. Even in the 21st century, the text is pluriform, with more than one version circulating among readers: there are multiple scholarly editions that use different strategies for presenting the text. The story of the history of the text is as much about the history of text-critical scholarship as it is about the development of the text. The rise of the printing press, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, and philosophical examinations of how to construe the concept of a “text” have all impacted what the Hebrew Bible looks like and means to modern scholars and audiences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".