MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891904839 · doi:10.29173/alr1345

Preventing an Agunah Crisis in the Wake of the World Trade Center Disaster by Establishing Death through Various Forms of Evidence

2003· article· en· W2891904839 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leora Nathan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosure (psychology)JudaismLawValue (mathematics)HistoryCriminologySociologyPolitical scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Jewish law, specific evidence confirming the death of a man is needed before his widow is able to remarry. In situations such as the attacks on the World Trade Center, where many victims could not be identified on the basis of their remains alone, evidence traditionally tendered to establish death was largely unavailable. This meant that a relaxation of some of the more stringent requirements for proof of death was required, and that some additional, novel categories of evidence had to be considered in establishing death. DNA fingerprinting and dental records are among the evidence that rabbis now consider to have some probative value in establishing death. In addition, telephone calls made and e-mails sent by the victims just prior to the attacks could be used as proof of presence within the towers. When considered in conjunction with assessments of the probability of escape from a given location within the towers, this evidence is given greater weight. The combination of traditional identification signs, processes and principles of proving death and the more recently acceptable methods has the effect of decreasing the waiting period before which a Jewish woman can conclude that her husband has perished, and can thus effectively bring some closure to a tragic circumstance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207