After Twenty Years: On the Place of “Women in Judaism” in Feminist Reading of Modern Hebrew Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminist reading of literary texts was introduced at the end of the 1970s. Over the last twenty years, feminist methods of literary criticism have gradually entered the sphere of Modern Hebrew literature, radically changing the way in which Hebrew texts are viewed by both women and men. This article offers a comprehensive model that pertains to four thematic categories, derived from studies published in the Women in Judaism journal over the last twenty years. These are the categories:Feminist reading of women writers’ works, examining representations of women, gender conflicts, relationships between sexes;Presenting theoretical / poetic models based on readings of Modern Hebrew literature;Suggestions of feminist reading of works written by men authors;Deconstructive reading of misogynist myths.As seen through the presented model, these categories may be supplemented with additional research categories, such as comparative studies of Hebrew and non-Hebrew women writers; examining poetic Anglo-Saxon impact upon currently written Hebrew Women Literature; and thematic studies of various fields (violence, education, art, politics) addressed by women who present an antithesis to male narratives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".