MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944168223 · doi:10.25071/1913-9632.39375

The "Revival" of Abram Leon

2019· article· en· W2944168223 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tal Elmaliach

Bibliographic record

VenueLeft History An Interdisciplinary Journal of Historical Inquiry and Debate · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyMarxist philosophyZionismPoliticsPopularityState (computer science)Argument (complex analysis)SociologyNew LeftJudaismLawPolitical sciencePolitical economyReligious studiesEconomic historyHistoryPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation, by Abram Leon, was the most influential book among critics of Zionism during the New Left era. It was first published in 1946 but did not receive significant public attention in the next two decades. However, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, it became a bestseller in terms of theoretical Marxist literature. Focusing on its re-publication in the United States in 1971, this article explores why the book's popularity transformed, almost overnight. Its main argument is that although current research deals mostly with Leon’s theoretical importance, the book’s revival in the 1960s and 1970s should be explained from a social and political perspective. Leon’s claims against Zionism, which had been developed in the late 1930s, lost their relevance after the Second World War as a result of the establishment of the state of Israel as well as the crisis of the global Left in the 1950s. They gained new importance only under new conditions: the rise of the New Left’s interest in the Middle-East conflict, the struggle between the anti- and pro-Zionist Jews of the New Left following the Six-Day War, and internal debates among the anti- and pro-Zionist Jews themselves. The "revival" of Abram Leon therefore reveals the ideological, organizational and social ties between the Old and the New Left, as well as the general interaction between ideology and social and political conditions.

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)0.000
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 score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeft History An Interdisciplinary Journal of Historical Inquiry and DebateSame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207