“Who will say Kaddish for me”? The American Reform Jewish response to HIV/AIDS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it