MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133099539

You Shall Call Me Yahweh: The How and Why El Came to be Known as Yahweh (Exod 3:1-15)

2023· dissertation· W7133099539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thandazani Mhlanga

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionCriticismMythologyComprehensionCharacter (mathematics)Biblical studies
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You shall Call Me Yahweh: The How and Why El Came to be Known as Yahweh (Exod 3:1-15)MA -Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations 2023 Thandazani Mhlanga Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto Moses’s encounter with Yahweh at Horeb and the corresponding exodus have arguably attracted academic debate for a longer period than most biblical passages. In this thesis, it is the author’s intent to conduct a nuanced rhetorical criticism of Exodus 3:1-15 that considers form criticism and the oral tradition undergirding the text. A new all-encompassing interpretive system is also suggested and utilized for the purposes of sharpening our interpretive precision and enhancing our sensitivity and comprehension of the text. Through this nuanced multi-layered critical approach, it becomes evident that the story of Moses’s encounter with El, the God of Your fathers, in Exodus 3:1-15, is an etiological myth of Yahweh as the innate character of El. Furthermore, the corresponding Sitz im Leben of this switch from El to Yahweh brings to light the often elusive and, consequently, ignored relationship between the story and the storyteller.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→