The Presentation of Shoah Events to Students at Various Educational Levels: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The review study deals with the presentation of methods of acquainting pupils and students with the Shoah events at various levels of institutional education. Based on the opinions and positions of leading experts on the subject, we summarize the most important methods in the field. In the introduction we present the importance of one line of the events of World War II in the 21st century world: the defined phenomenon can be perceived as a warning against certain forms of stigmatization, ostracism or as a warning against the need to protect democratic political order. In the paper we define the terms Shoah, Holocaust, anti-Semitism and racism. We also deal with the Israeli public schools in the area of teaching about the Shoah, with the curricular anchorage of the terms Shoah and Holocaust and with the potential of Literary Education in the field of Shoah presentation. We believe that the educational system of the Jewish state can be a model in the area of implementation of the defined phenomenon for the educational systems of other countries. At the same time, we summarize the most important research surveys dealing with the teaching of the Shoah in Israel. In the area of methods are in more detail introduced “The Survivors´ Heritage”, “The Historical Approach”, “Multi-Level Approach” and “An Interdisciplinary Approach”.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".