MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150270282 · doi:10.1093/mj/kjq034

Responsa 2.0. are Q&A Websites Creating a New Type of Halachic Discourse?

2011· article· en· W2150270282 on OpenAlexaff
Oren Z. Steinitz

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Judaism - A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrayerArgument (complex analysis)Religious studiesPhilosophyTheologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Question Dear Rabbi! I have an argument with one of my friends and I would be happy if the Rabbi would solve the issue for us. We were nine people in a prayer service and a non-religious repair-man who came to fix something at the synagogue. I told my friend that we should ask him to complete the prayer-quorum [of ten] and my friend said that a nonobservant [Jew] cannot join a prayer-quorum as he publicly desecrates the Sabbath and does inappropriate things so he cannot join us. Is this true? … After all, we are not completely righteous either and there is no person who does not sin? Answer A person who is an atheist and does not believe in the Master of the Universe, to add him to a prayer quorum is merely a mockery towards the Heavens. So, it depends on what kind of secular [Jew] we are talking about. Usually, if we are talking about a Mizraḥi person [of Middle Eastern origin – O.S.] then he is a believer and observes some traditions in one way or the other, and then like you said, not very different from us who are not completely righteous. But if he is a secular Ashkenazi [Jew of European origin – O.S.] then he is probably also an atheist and you cannot add him [to the quorum] unless it is known that he is indeed a believer.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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Judaism - A Journal of Jewish Ideas and ExperienceSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207