MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063889703 · doi:10.7202/009532ar

Jewish-Christian Dialogue under the Shadow of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

2003· article· fr· W2063889703 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gregory Baum

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnologyJudaismHumanitiesPalestineArtOppressionPolitical sciencePhilosophyTheologySociologyHistoryAncient historyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to World War II, Jewish religious thinkers who moved beyond the tradition of Orthodoxy were in dialogue with modern culture, including dialogue with Christian thinkers who were also searching new religious responses to the challenge of modernity. Paul Tillich's "Circle of Religious Socialists," founded after World War I, included Christians and Jews, Martin Buber among them. Yet even after World War II, the young German-Canadian philosopher Emil Fackenheim saw himself as an ally of Christian theologians in a joint effort to communicate the word of God to a society that had become secular. He gladly acknowledged an affinity of his theological approach with neo-orthodox Christian thought. Yet in 1967, gripped by the fear that Israel might be destroyed, he assigned the Holocaust a central position in his thinking. He heard God's commanding voice speaking out of the Shoah giving Jewish men and women a new commandment: to struggle for their collective survival so that Hitler would not be granted a posthumous victory. "Never again shall the Jewish people be humiliated and destroyed!" Fackenheim now took up dialogue with Christian thinkers in a new key, demanding not only repentance over the Church's ancient anti-Jewish discourse, but also wholehearted support for the State of Israel, the concrete symbol of Jewish survival and security in the world 1 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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