Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the first to provide a socio-legal comparative history of under-studied or ignored Jewish attempts in the 1930s "Anglosphere" to counter the rise in fascist and Nazi antisemitism, this book examines the ways in which Jewish individuals and organized communal bodies in the mid-to-late 1930s sought to counter this increasing antisemitic violence, physical and verbal, by using the law against their fascist and Nazi attackers. This is the first study to explore how Jews in these countries organized themselves, brought their oppressors to court, while seeking to convince their governments that an attack on Jews was a threat to the social order. The book analyzes the networks of knowledge and the personal relationships between and among key actors and institutions of the "Antisemitic International." Nazi "nationalists" always participated in networks that transcended borders. Case studies from Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, illustrate the ways in which different mechanisms of Jewish resistance were deployed throughout the mid-to-late 1930s. They embody significant concerns about the "turn to law" and the importance of litigation and legislation. Grounded in original archival research on three continents, the book examines the ways in which professional legal discourse about public order and democratic citizenship proffered by Jewish communities and individual Jews was countered by their Nazi opponents with legal and political arguments about "truth," "persecution," and Jewish perfidy. The book will be of interest to students, academics, and researchers working in the areas of Legal History, History, Jewish Studies, the study of Antisemitism, and the History of the far right, fascism and Nazism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".