Further Reflections on the Critically Established Text of Armenian Deuteronomy, Offered at the Completion of the Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article builds on an earlier presentation that explained how the new edition of Armenian Deuteronomy with its critically established text was prepared, various features of the translator’s strategy in rendering a Greek source text into Armenian, and the results of the collation of the critically established Armenian text against the critical edition of the Old Greek (see Cox 2024, 35–51). Now that the edition is finished and in press (Cox in press), it seems appropriate to write a concluding postscript, so to speak, to affirm and adjust slightly the results that were set forth earlier, to take up several issues that arose in the course of collation, as well as to build on them and address implications that those results may have for our understanding of the origins of the translations of the Bible into Armenian, at least with respect to parts of the Old Testament. The following remarks are offered in unequal parts, but all carry forth the work and results sustained in the critical edition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".