A Jewish Rose by Any Other Name: Thoughts on the Regulation of Jewish Women’s Personal Names
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even as individuals are granted the right to name and be named, they are acting in the context of a given society, each with its own cultural and political designs. It follows that societies are wont to regulate the area of personal names. They do so by means, such as fashion and social pressure. In addition, as this article argues, the institution of law is intimately, if not always obviously, tied up with personal names and naming. Here the argument is made in conjunction with the naming of Jewish girls. In this regard, centuries of Jewish history have produced exceedingly similar findings: compared to men’s names, which tend to line-up in long, ongoing patrilineal formation, women’s names are somewhat fickle, changing from time to time, from place to place, discontinuing each other, if they are lucky enough to receive a mention at all. This article suggest that one of the reasons for the aforementioned “nominal” gender discrepancy is that the law has consistently considered only men’s names to be of importance, hence the dispensing of the shaping of women’s names to the more fleeting forces of fashion and so on, rather than the more enduring forces of tradition and inter-generational continuity, for example. In other words, it could be suggested that would the law had attributed more to Jewish women’s names, there might have been more to them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".