MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241755064 · doi:10.1017/9781787444867.015

A Jewish Faust Commentary: Notes on Franz Rosenzweig's <i>The Star of Redemption</i>

2019· book-chapter· en· W4241755064 on OpenAlexaff
Willi Goetschel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Aesthetics, and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFAUSTJudaismStar (game theory)PhilosophyPsychoanalysisArt historyArtTheologyPsychologyPhysicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IT HAS OFTEN been noted that quotes, resonances, and the style of Goethe permeate if not inform the writing of Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929). Viewed as fashionable mannerism in the tradition of bourgeois culture that liberal German Judaism liked to embrace, the adoption of Goethe played an important role in nineteenth-century Jewish cultural life. Serving cultural as well as sociological and political functions, Goethe reception had become a central fixture in the arsenal of a nineteenth- and early twentieth-century culture war, and not just with regard to the positioning of liberal German Jewry. A central asset of the cultural capital backed by Germany's national ambitions, Goethe's stock, however, had not remained uncontested, and his valorization saw occasional fluctuations nervously reacting to the upheaval of an unsteady market. Participating in the Goethe cult could mean many different— and at times opposite—things. Many motives, interests, concerns, and agendas intermingled, but first and foremost, the appropriation of Goethe had become an affair of the liberal bourgeoisie. By the end of the nineteenth century, Goethe reception had become a matter of particular Jewish interest. Without the salons of Jewish women such as Rachel Varnhagen and the rise of Goethe philology in the late nineteenth century (spearheaded by Jewish scholars such as Michael Bernays and Ludwig Geiger, to name just the exponents among the Jewish Goethe philologists), Goethe reception would be hard to imagine. At the home of Heine's parents, for example, Goethe had become such a towering presence that Heine's father worried: “Wie soll mein Junge aufkommen … wenn man immer und immer nur von Goethe sprechen will?” (How shall my boy succeed if everybody only wants to talk about Goethe all the time). Whereas Goethe had become politically unreliable for many nationally conservative Germans, his cosmopolitan and forward-looking vision of culture and Bildung (education) promised the emancipatory development that German Jews had so eagerly been looking forward to since the days of Moses Mendelssohn. If Goethe had become suspect to conservatives, liberals embraced him as an exponent of a reluctant modernity. In embracing a culturally liberal position, Goethe stood for the combination of the best that German culture had to offer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0260.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicArt, Aesthetics, and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207