MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291349932

Jewish Intermarriage in American Society: Literature Review

2014· article· en· W2291349932 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen in Judaism A Multidisciplinary e-Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish Identity and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismEthnic groupSociologyHaskalahContext (archaeology)LoyaltyGender studiesHistoryJewish studiesPolitical scienceLawAnthropology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As of the 1960s, intermarriage has been the most researched, contentious, and discussed topic of American Jewish family life. Jews, like other ethnic groups, struggle and work hard to find a place in American life, while debating what level of their traditional Jewish heritage is to be maintained. As the tensions and pulls between assimilation and ethnic group loyalty ensue, the greatest debate is the context and impact of intermarriage amongst and between the Orthodox and Reform sections of the Jewish people. On one hand, Orthodox families argue Jewish intermarriage decimates the continuity of the Jewish people. On the other hand, the Reform movement views intermarriage as an opportunity to effectively assimilate within American culture while maintaining a sense of Jewishness. As American life continues to evolve, and as Jews continue to intermarry, the debate for optimal stability, functionality, consistency, and continuity for the American Jewish community will continue.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.303 · 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