MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100441370 · doi:10.7202/014986ar

Struggling with Tradition

2007· article· en· W2100441370 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shari Rochelle Lash

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamLesbianGender studiesSociologyHomosexualityWitnessQueerJudaismSymbol (formal)LawHistoryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite growing acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream popular culture, debates about legalizing same-sex unions continue largely because they conflict with religious notions of heterosexual marriage and family. Marriage has become a symbol of status, making public weddings a sought-after goal for marginalized groups to gain greater social acceptance. Liberal Judaism particularly has responded to changing cultural circumstances and adapted tradition to meet the needs of diverse worshippers within a growing spiritual marketplace. These branches of the tradition contend with problematic textual and ritual elements that have obstructed the acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer Jews into their communities.Alternative understandings of Leviticus 18:22 and the Talmudic concept ofkiddushinmake room for same-sex weddings to occur in the synagogue. Because same-sex marriage challenges dominant attitudes about what constitutes a conventional family, wedding ceremonies performed in religious settings can transform communities that witness them, especially within Canada where same-sex marriage is legal.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.035
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207