MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416431933 · doi:10.2308/aahj-2025-014

Allocating the Cost of Town Walls in Medieval Castile: A Rabbinic Analysis

2025· article· en· W4416431933 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

VenueAccounting Historians Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)NormativeCost allocationJudaismCost analysisTalmudCost accountingCost of equity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study analyzes the normative criteria proposed by Rabbi Meir Halevi Abulafia (Ramah) for allocating the cost of building urban fortifications among Jewish aljamas in medieval Castile. Using textual and historical-interpretive analyses of rabbinic sources, this paper maintains that Ramah’s extensive cost allocation analysis of town walls was driven by historical events surrounding the Reconquista. The paper finds that Ramah’s geometric cost allocation scheme is consistent with both Talmudic and economic efficiency reasoning. Because the Talmudic letter of the law conflicted with equity considerations, the Ramah was forced to do an “about face” and rationalize a more equitable approach, if only by reference to less-than-ideal Talmudic sources. This study contributes to the historical accounting literature by showing that cost allocation in medieval Spain was justified both on efficiency and equity grounds—albeit moderated by historical exigencies—in consonance with some of the modern cost allocation literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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