Bibliographic record
Abstract
IN COMPARING ORTHODOX JUDAISM IN Israel and in the American Diaspora, it should be kept in mind that Jews in America and other contemporary Diaspora communities in the Western World have much in common.* Therefore, many of the conclusions of this article are also valid with regard to Diaspora Jewish communities in Western Europe and countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. term was created in Central Europe in the beginning of the 19th century. It was used to distinguish between those Jews who kept their commitment to the Jewish tradition, and Jews, like the Reform or Conservatives, who sought to make pronounced changes in tradition in response to the far-reaching changes in Jewish life in the wake of the emancipation of European Jewry. It is significant to note that the very term Orthodox Judaism, which is so accepted among most Western Diaspora Jews, is not commonly used in Israel. Its place is taken by the far more prevalent term religious difference between these two terms is more than merely semantic. It reflects important differences in the social and political conditions of Israel and the Diaspora. In contemporary Western countries, particularly in America, most of the Jews consider Orthodoxy to be only one of the legitimate expressions of Jewish religion. By contrast, Jews are perceived by most of the Israelis as the authentic representatives of Judaism. This is true even in regard to many non-religious Israelis. As the Israeli political scientist, Shlomo Avineri said, The synagogue I am not going to
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".