Review of J.S. Kloppenborg and J.H. Newman, eds. 'Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task, Past and Present', Resources for Biblical Studies 69. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Pp. xii + 225. Paper. $32.95. ISBN 9781589836488.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial versions of most of the essays in this book were presented at a 2007 Conference on Editorial Problems organized by John Kloppenborg and held at the University of Toronto. Although the same conference has been held annually since 1965, this was the first time that the difficulties and challenges of making critical editions of the Bible was discussed. Unusually, the conference brought together text-critical scholars of the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint and the New Testament. As a result, 'Editing the Bible' contains five essays each on Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism that together constitute a stimulating update on developments in both fields.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".