Bibliographic record
Abstract
D uring the Holocaust, the United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in that country, did not speak in one voice: there were harsh antisemitic and pro-Nazi expressions on the one hand, and protests against anti-Jewish persecution and support for the admission of Jewish refugees into Canada on the other. While individuals stood out as exceptions, the institutional United Church (UC) was part of the general silence in Canada. Statements by official UC members and courts were rare and vague. United Church members who sympathized with the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust and felt guilty for their own silence supported the establishment of the State of Israel. They realized that the only guard against a repeat of mass destruction was a strong Israeli nation with secure borders. A strong opposition rose in the United Church against this uncritical support of Israel. Led by Ernest M. Howse, a former Moderator, and A.C. Forrest, editor of the United Church Observer , this group maintained that an attempt to meet one refugee problem has created another similar injustice. The result of the establishment of the State of Israel was the creation of injustice to Arab refugees. The arguments of this group prevailed, and from 1956 the United Church adopted a constant pro-Arab policy. The aim of this article is to show how the shadow of the Holocaust hovered over the debate regarding the attitude of the United Church towards the State of Israel. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".