MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096328533

Morton Weinfeld Like Everyone Else…but Different: The Paradoxical Success of Canadian Jews.

2002· article· en· W7096328533 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismEthnic groupParliamentAssimilation (phonology)Kingdom
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada was marked on Parliament Hill in November 1977. The affair, attended by many dignitaries, was also rained out. Prince Philip, nearly drenched, turned to one of the distinguished guests, Rabbi Gunther Plaut, and asked, “Could you clergymen not have arranged for better weather? ” Plaut replied, “Sir, we are in sales, not in management.” (Columbo, 2001:46). Morton Weinfeld, in this new look at Jews and Jewish life in Canada, is most emphatically in sales. He declares in his opening sentence that this book was a labour of love. His love for the project as well as for the story he has to share bounces from every page. He skilfully integrates sociological analyses with personal anecdotes and insights. To borrow and adapt a second-wave feminist phrase, the personal is sociological for Morton Weinfeld in this book. Like Everyone Else…but Different is a book about Jews in Canada, about Jewish experiences both individual and collective (which he clearly shows must be seen in the plural). But it is also a book about Canada and Canadianness, about ethnicity and ethnic minorities and minoritization, about assimilation and mosaics and resistances to both. It is about neighbourliness and getting along, sometimes with amusing and sometimes with far less amusing consequences, but generally in the

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0490.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→