"When Orthodoxy was not as chic as it is today": The Jewish Forum and American Modern Orthodoxy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Jewish Forum was an American Orthodox monthly published from 1918 to 1962. It reflected issues and developments affecting Orthodox Judaism in America, from the twenties to the sixties. In these decades, Orthodoxy went from being a threatened entity on the American scene to a well-recognized, respected force in Judaism and The Jewish Forum played a role in this transformation. The journal is a useful research tool for tracing the history of the development of Modern Orthodoxy in America in the twentieth century and is itself part of that history. Jewish journals in America have had a history of struggling for their very existence and disappearing with “alarming frequency” and so The Jewish Forum's forty-four years of publishing, against all odds, constitutes an achievement of some significance.1 The Jewish Forum sought to strengthen those who wanted to lead an Orthodox life in America. The editor wrote, in 1926, that the aim of The Jewish Forum was to “bring them [Jews] back to the fold and to keep those that are still reluctant to break away.”2 It sought, as well, to win the allegiance of Jews attracted to Reform or Conservative Judaism. The Jewish Forum set out to accomplish these goals by demonstrating that Orthodoxy in America, which contemporary critics likened to a sinking ship, was relevant.3 This was not an easy task in an age in which traditional Judaism was widely seen as out of date and “not fit for modern life.”4 At its demise, The Jewish Forum could look back to its beginnings, “when Orthodoxy was not as chic as it is today, nor even acceptable.”5
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".