Bibliographic record
Abstract
This edited collection offers new perspectives on perceived paradoxes in Israel’s religious heritage, with a particular focus on the Garden of Eden narrative and descriptions of Israel’s God. The chapters examine a number of themes related to these paradoxes, including (1) “knowledge” versus “life” (referencing the two Edenic trees); (2) paradoxes pertaining to knowledge in the biblical versus Socratic traditions and the Platonic “good” versus the apparent eschewing of the good-evil dichotomy in Garden of Eden; (3) difficulties implicating finitude versus infinity; (4) God’s Edenic garden versus rabbinical “orchard,” or Pardes, the traditional fourfold manner of Torah interpretation; (5) the question of theSôd, or “secret” esoteric stratum or narrative channel within the text of the Torah; (6) the issue of idolatry; (7) the nature of Israel’s deity; (8) a comparative glimpse of the Israelite God vis-à-vis relevant Christian and Buddhist glosses on divinity; and (9) science-fictional explorations of the biblical exegesis discourse. The volume’s contributors are based in Canada; England; Poland; Israel; and the United States.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".