MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753586676 · doi:10.1353/sho.2017.0009

The Jewish Queer Continuum in Yeshiva Narratives

2017· article· en· W2753586676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shlomo Gleibman

Bibliographic record

VenueShofar · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerJudaismRomanceGender studiesLesbianNarrativeMainstreamSociologyNormativeTorahPsychoanalysisAestheticsLiteraturePsychologyArtTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The yeshiva narratives in two Jewish gay male novels produced at the turn of the new millennium—The Same Embrace (1998) by US author Michael Lowenthal and Mourning and Celebration (2009) by Canadian writer K. David Brody—imagine Jewish intellectual life as a new site of identification for queer Jews. In these works of fiction, the image of the yeshiva signifies an affective community that responds to the limitations of mainstream gay and Jewish cultures. This type of representation differs from dominant, normative constructions of Jewishness and queerness, from heteronormative and homonormative models of desire. The hevruta, as a study partnership and as a form of erotic, sexual, and romantic intimacy, performs the function of an alternative, nonheteronormative Jewish family. It is organized around a "text" model of queer desire, where the Torah mediates the homoerotic connections of male students or scholars to one another, forming an "erotic triangle" between the text and the study partners. This construction resists dominant binary discourses by arranging the sexual and the affective, the erotic and the religious as a Jewish queer continuum.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShofarSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207