Review of <i>The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997,</i> edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; executive editor Galen Marquis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occasionally a volume appears that is almost impossible to review, whether because the material it presents is completely new, the subject matter is so esoteric, or the material is so eclectic that it cannot be absorbed in a single review. The latter is the case with the present volume, which contains over 100 articles by scholars from the United States, Israel, Canada, and Europe. The subject matter is the finds from the Judaean Desert—not only the written remains but also the material, biological, and architectural remains as well. The written remains include the Qumran scrolls (popularly referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls), the Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri, the Nahal Hever and Wadi Murrabaçat collections, and the fragments found at Masada, as well as various individual finds from the region. The other material remains come from the find sites of the written collections. The resulting volume is a vast compendium of Judaean Desert scholarship, including wide-ranging syntheses by established scholars in the field (e.g., “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text” by Eugene Ulrich) and small-scale studies of a single aspect of scrolls studies (e.g., “Some Observations on the Aramaic in Qumran: The 3rd Fem. Sing. Pronominal Suffix” by Ursula Schattner-Riesner). As the editors state, “The subjects covered were many and varied as is attested to in these conference volumes. The various genres of the literature reflected in the scrolls, the languages, the parallels in previously known compositions, the concepts, doctrines, and beliefs, the impact of historical events on the settlements in this region—all these aspects come to life in the scrolls and scroll fragments from what was once a dark period in modern knowledge of Judean history” (pp. xix–xx). As the reader can immediately grasp, this is not a volume that will be read and digested as a whole. Instead, different scholars will use different parts of the volume, depending upon their interests in various aspects of scrolls scholarship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".