MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504647957 · doi:10.1353/sho.2002.0015

Itsik Fefer: A Yiddish Wunderkind of the Bolshevik Revolution

2002· article· en· W1504647957 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gennady Estraikh

Bibliographic record

VenueShofar · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianJudaismPoetryEspionageLiteratureNationalismHistoryNazismWorld War IIClassicsLawPolitical sciencePoliticsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Itsik Fefer (1900-1952) was one of the most prominent Soviet Yiddish writers, who perfectly combined the two talents of a poet and an apparatchik. His 1922 poetry collection, Splinters, established him as a rising literary star. The same year he formulated his literary credo of "simple speech," which would become the trademark of his work. By 1924, Fefer already occupied one of the highest places in the hierarchy of Soviet Yiddish literature. In 1927 he was one of the founding members of the Ukrainian Association of Yiddish Revolutionary Writers. He combined editorial positions at both Yiddish literary journals, Prolit (Proletarian Literature) and Di royte velt (Red World), published in Ukraine in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The creation of the Writers' Union increased Fefer's importance. He represented Yiddish literature on the board of the Soviet and Ukrainian's Writers' Unions. During WWII, Fefer became a leading figure in the Jewish Antifascist Committee. In 1943 he, together with Solomon Mikhoels, visited the United States, Canada, Mexico, and England. Fefer finished his life in prison, accused of Jewish nationalism and of spying for the Americans.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShofarSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207