A text-critical study of the Nova Vulgata of Sirach 41. Part 2: Text-critical evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquesta part de l'estudi («part 2») examina i resumeix l'anàlisi detallada dels versets de Siràcida 41-42 presentada en la «part 1» per tal de mostrar a la pràctica: 1) en quina versió de la Vulgata es basa la Nova Vulgata; 2) fins a quin punt la Nova Vulgata ajusta la Vulgata a la versió dels LXX; 3) quan les fonts hebrees difereixen significativament dels LXX, fins a quin punt la Nova Vulgata ajusta la Vulgata a l'hebreu; 4) en quina mesura els resultats de 2 i 3 coincideixen amb la comesa respecte al Siràcida tal com s'especifica en les observacions introductòries de la mateixa Nova Vulgata i en els primers articles sobre aquesta matèria. Finalment, 5) s'ofereixen algunes observacions amb relació a les qüestions precedents i les maneres com aquesta inconsistència podria ser rectificada en una futura revisió.
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 | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".