MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549218051

Jewish Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place

2011· article· en· W1549218051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabrielle A. Berlinger

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Folklore · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionJudaismPoliticsThe HolocaustSociologyDiasporaLeft-wing politicsJewish studiesSpace (punctuation)Media studiesArt historyHistoryAnthropologyGender studiesLawPolitical scienceArchaeologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place. Edited by Julia Brauch, Anna Lipphardt and Alexandra Nocke. (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008. Pp. xii + 375. Foreword, acknowledgments, inttoduction, photographs, notes, bibliography, index. $124.95 cloth.)From 2001 to 2007, the interdisciplinary research group Makom: Place and Places in Judaism met at the University of Potsdam to probe the perception and experience of Jewish space and place. Their meetings resulted in the publication ?? Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place, a collection of eighteen essays on the topic by architects, historians, political scientists, folklorists, artists, curators, anthropologists, sociologists, and cultural studies scholars. The book is heavy (400 pages) and pricey, but those factors are justified by the richness of its material - diverse empirical research and theoretical analyses that interrogate the boundaries of Jewish space and place through distinct disciplinary lenses.In their introduction, editors Julia Brauch, Anna Lipphardt, and Alexandra Nocke outiine the Makom group's motivations to research the geographies of life. The work of the Makom group, they say, aimed to address several realities about Jewish space and place: that no comprehensive or institutionalized Space Studies yet existed; that academic discourse about space typically ran along dichotomized lines (Israel vs. diaspora, religious vs. secular, leftist vs. rightist, Zionist vs. post-Zionist); that since the Holocaust, scholars have rarely demonstrated an objective approach to European topography, more often focusing on death and commemoration than living people and spaces; and, lasdy, that the political significance of Israel has overshadowed other spaces and places since its founding in 1948 (15-16). The group thus embarked on six years of research and writing to complicate these realities with nuanced theory and a wide range of field projects.Interest in both historical and current experiences of Jews in contact zones and sites of boundary (significant both as places and as spaces) thus guides the book's investigations, with questions such as, How do spaces emerge? Who is involved in the process of their emergence? And, how are spaces contested, performed, and used? (1-2). The authors study these questions through examinations of physical places, conceptual spaces, and the dynamic processes of their construction and deconstruction.Divided into five parts, the book begins with Construction Sites, a section of case studies by Miriam Lipis, Manuel Herz, and Haim Yacobi that target the issue of belonging through symbolic and physical constructions. They examine the sukkah [ritual 'tabernacle,' Hebrew], the eruv [real or symbolic fence or enclosure, Hebrew] , and the Israeli town of Netivot to understand how boundaries develop and dissolve.Jewish Quarters follows, offering new takes on old quarters through studies by Kenneth Helphand, Susan Gilson Miller, Etan Diamond, Eszter Brigitta Gantner, and Matyas Kovacs. They examine ghetto gardens created by Jews, the spatial boundaries between Jews and Muslims in the mellah ['walled quarter,' Arabic] in Morocco, the religious micro-spaces of Thornhill, Toronto, and subcultures of Budapest's urban landscape. …

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern FolkloreSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207