Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay studies emergent themes in American Jewish women’s history and integrates them within the broader, often sustained, themes in the field of American Jewish women’s history. Beginning with a brief historiography of the field of American Jewish women’s history as it emerged in the late 1970s, this examination traces its transformation over the following decades and its evolution to today. In addition to presenting the field’s persistent themes, including work and domesticity (women’s roles in both the public and private spheres), politics and social activism, religiosity, and feminism, looking at key texts from both feminist scholars as well as recent works in the field of modern Jewish history, this essay highlights the emergence of new lines of scholarly inquiry spanning contemporary social, cultural, political, economic, and broad intersectional discourse. Moreover, this essay advances and emphasizes two clear patterns of emergent literature based on this assessment. First, that they reflect and have developed out of extant themes in Jewish American women’s history, and second, they are shaped by and entangled with nascent themes across diverse academic disciplines. Finally, this paper comments on the current positioning of the field and recommends future directions for research in the field of American Jewish women’s history.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".