Pochodzenie nowobabilońskich dokumentów prawnych z Kolekcji Ashmolean Muzeum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of currently known Neo-Babylonian legal and administrative documents from Kish come from excavations held on this site by the joint expedition of Oxford – Field Museum (Chicago) between 1923–1933. They are now housed in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. However, ca. 40 Neo-Babylonian ‘Kish’ tablets, i.e., written in Ḫursagkalamma or Kiš, are present in other collections. How did they end up in these museums assuming that most of them was acquired in the last quarter of the 19th century, 30–50 years before the expedition mentioned above? I suppose that they were not found in Kish, even though their Ausstellungsort indicates quite the opposite. They instead come from nearby Babylon or Borsippa cities. The analysis conducted in the article seems to confirm this assumption, and for most cases, the provided attribution should be considered. Additionally, tablets under discussion are testimonies of the vivid economic life of entrepreneurial Babylonians in the first millennium BC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.138 |
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".