MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7017423575

The bronze serpent, a perplexing remedy : an analysis of Num. 21:4-9 in the light of Near Eastern serpent emblems, archaeology and inner Biblical exegesis

2005· dissertation· en· W7017423575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2005
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerpent (symbolism)IsraelitesContext (archaeology)BronzeExegesisTorahSection (typography)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Num. 21: 4-9, after complaining against God, the Israelites were punished with a plague of venomous serpents. Following their apology, God commanded Moses to fashion a bronze serpent and mount it on a standard; the bitten were to look at it to recover. The use of the serpent form is striking, as it seems to boldly negate the fundamental Torah law, which prohibits the use of any images or statues. To gain better insight into the narrative, the first section of this work explores a possible context for it, based on archaeological findings. The second section focuses on the two prominent Egyptian elements contained in the narrative, the serpent and the standard, whose local symbolism is evaluated. The third section explores whether there are ancient Near Eastern parallels for the healing serpent. The narrative, in the fourth section, is examined according to its inner-Biblical interpretation. As the episode is the last of the ten wilderness complaint sequences, each is analyzed for a comprehensive understanding of Num. 21: 4-9; what elements, if any, are unique to it, and might have contributed the narrative's use of this peculiar remedy?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→