Bibliographic record
Abstract
My late revered teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, even today is probably best remembered by many for his political activism during the 1960s and the early 1970s. Whenever newsreels taken during that time are shown again, one will inevitably see Heschel alongside Martin Luther King Jr. in the march from Selma, Alabama, or one will frequently see Heschel marching in front of the White House protesting the war in Vietnam. Yet there is little in Heschel's earlier work, written or oral, to intimate that, let alone how, he would move into this kind of public role in the last years of his life: a life relatively poor in years, but absolutely rich in achievement. Although never arcane, “dispassionate” scholarship, Heschel's earlier work is still primarily engaged in the perennial theological question of the relationship between God and humans, especially as that relationship is experienced by humans and even by God himself in the event of revelation, specifically that of Sinai.1 In that event of all events, at least one group of humans presented themselves to the God who is in search of all humankind. In his work as a Jewish theologian, Heschel's mastery of classical Jewish texts (from the Bible to the writings of fairly recently deceased Hasidic masters), plus his skillful use of a phenomenological method (most akin to the phenomenology of Max Scheler), enabled him to make theology a living discipline for committed Jewish thinkers, who were inspired by him, even if they did not become his followers in the strict sense. In my view, the fact that any Jewish thinkers today, of my generation or younger, can speak the name “God” cogently in English would be impossible were it not for Abraham Joshua Heschel.2 That alone would enable any of us to be ever inspired by his thought. For that alone, as what might well be taken to be the greatest effect of his work as a Jewish theologian, we could all say “that is enough” (dayyenu).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".