Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Legitimacy implies the existence of a framework within which it is assessed. The framework chosen for this paper is the religion of Judaism. This is, of course, contingent on the assumption that the state of Israel is related to Judaism, whatever its stream. Both the founding fathers of Zionism and their detractors emphasized the discontinuity and the revolutionary nature of the new political movement in Jewish history. Traditional leaders of Judaism almost unanimously condemned Zionism as an alien and perfidious import. They refused it all legitimacy. However, the policy of centrality of Israel exported around the world by Israeli educators for several decades has borne fruit. Many Jews find it difficult to separate Zionism from the Jewish identity as it has been taught to them. Their identity is often centred on political support for the State of Israel, and they see advocacy for Israel — a special course in the curriculum of many private Jewish schools — as a key part of being Jewish. The question of Israel divides the Jews more than any other. In view of the vast diversity of views, Judaic legitimacy of Israel depends of the kind of Judaism in question. In terms of traditional Judaic scholarship, espoused by most Haredim, Zionism and the state that embodies it are at best irrelevant to their Judaism. Yet, more modernized Jewish communities embrace the centrality of Israel with a lot of emotion. They cannot imagine a Judaism without Israel. In their often romantic view of Israel they cannot understand how a pious Jew can live in Jerusalem and remain intransigent in his rejection of Zionism.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".