Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time in modern Jewish thought is a developing field for which there are still few broad overviews. Yet a temporal turn has recently emerged in the field of Jewish studies, inviting this article to consider a timely question: how might themes and interpretive lenses from studies of Jewish time, temporality, and timekeeping illumine novel approaches to questions in a number of proximate—and even not-so proximate—fields? How might the lenses and themes of time, as drawn from Jewish thought and Jewish lived practice, bring original and fertile approaches to fields ranging from, e.g., politics, law, and policy, to systems of climate and economic justice, to technologies and “artificial” intelligences that increasingly undergird meaning and decision making in all of these disciplines? As constructed upon the idea that the future is constituted of, and by, redemptive possibility, i.e., the possibility of change, Jewish temporal thought contributes a future that is both always just beyond reach, yet all the same intervenes incessantly into an ongoing shaping of the temporal present, affording a glimpse of what is not yet, but ought to be. Jewish texts liturgically encounter events as if occurring in the present moment of now, bearing ethical obligations that arise as powerfully renewed in the present moment of now. Time is thereby a medium of the meeting of God, human, and world, and time’s categories share an ever-unclosed frame of ethical knowledge pursuit. This article considers time as experienced in active encounters with difference, e.g., in expressions of instants and durations, discontinuities and continuities, and the infinite and the finite. Themes of inexhaustible reach toward messianic redemption emerge alongside themes of origin, hope, and memory through which what ought to be is actively and continuously constructed and lived. Time is the very medium of a relationship with God, and time is the constitutive material of the ethical will in human thought and action in the present. As such, themes and interpretive tools drawn from time in modern Jewish thought invite the researcher to write about what is already known in terms of what is not yet known yet could possibly be. Therefore the objective of this article and its ongoing updates will establish a repository of themes and settings of Jewish time, temporality, and time-keeping that might invite dynamic, creative, and novel research interventions across a number of disciplines.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".