Bibliographic record
Abstract
The site of Horvat Qitmit is located in the semi-arid Beersheba-Arad valley of the northeastern Negev in the southern Levant. Dating from the 8th through the early 6th century BCE, this site was located within the southern geographic range of influence of the Kingdom of Judah to the north, based at Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the majority of the material culture from Horvat Qitmit shows strong parallels and similarity to that excavated in southern Transjordan, in the Kingdom of Edom. For this reason, Horvat Qitmit has often been called an "Edomite" shrine. In fact, recent research has demonstrated the cultural diversity of this northeastern Negev region that was located along a major east-west trade corridor that connected the Mediterranean Sea to Judah, Edom, and Arabia to the southeast. Due to these trade connections as well as the mobile agropastoral subsistence nature of the region, the "Edomite" material culture at Horvat Qitmit in fact represents persons established within, and local to the region. In addition to travelers and other mobile groups, this "Edomite" subset of the local populace frequented this shrine for generations. The primary deity worshipped at Horvat Qitmit was likely the deity Qos (קוס), as is attested in the inscriptions at the site. Qos is primarily known at this time as the foremost deity of Edom. There is evidence for at least one additional deity, a goddess (Astarte or Asherah?) attested in statuary, who may have been understood as the consort of the weather-type deity Qos. The site was eventually abandoned in the late 7th or more likely early 6th century BCE, at a time contemporary to the settlement collapse of this region that was in large part associated with the imperial Neo-Babylonian invasions of the southern Levant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".