“Who will say Kaddish for me”? The American Reform Jewish response to HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The AIDS epidemic tragically caused the death of millions of people. This article examines the role that the American Reform Jewish community fulfilled in responding to HIV/AIDS in the 1980s, and what lasting effects, if any, these responses had, and how they related to Reform Judaism as a whole. In 1985 the General Assembly of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC)11 The UAHC is the organizational body of the Jewish Reform movement in North America, comprising more than 750 member congregations in the United States and Canada. passed a historic resolution calling to abolish discrimination against HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) positive people. The Reform movement thus became the only formal Jewish institution to advocate an open discussion regarding congregants who lived with HIV or had AIDS, and presented a clear resistance to the AIDSphobic Orthodox agenda, which declared the disease to be a punishment from God for the “sin” of homosexuality. Based on the textual analysis of recovery and memorial prayers, rabbis’ sermons and community services activities and educational programmes, I argue that the Reform community served as a social agent for the recognition of people with HIV/AIDS. Thus, I conclude that the Reform response, which was arising from personal mourning and social needs, advocated and encouraged inclusion of the American gay Jewish community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".