MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096982130

The Story of One Suburban Synagogue and its Founding Rabbi---Susan Landau-Chark---

2015· article· en· W7096982130 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish Identity and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationJudaismSuburbanizationDemobilizationOrder (exchange)Nephew and niece
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rabbi Abraham Bernard Leffell was a rarity amongst Canadian rabbis in his day. He was a first generation Canadian- born in Montreal, June 12, 1926, with both his parents having migrated to North America at a very young age.1 In order to fully fathom the milieu within which Rabbi Leffell spent his rabbinical career it is important to be aware of further divergences between Canada and the United States especially in regard to the suburbanization of their respective Jewish communities. One striking variation between the American immigration experience and that of immigrants to Canada was that while many of the immigrants and their children “Canadianized ” they continued to maintain their traditional religious practices. By the 1950's in both Canada and the United States, the demobilization of the armed forces and the influx of new immigrants contributed to this period of time as being one of intense preoccupation with conformity. In the United States, “Levittowns ” were being built and families were rushing from the cities to the suburbs to live in these look-alike houses. Women were in the suburbs with the children, family size increased, men were in their grey flannel suits climbing the corporate ladder, and the key word to family life was “togetherness.”2 The legendary family of the 1950's, complete with appliances, station wagon, backyard barbecues and tricycles scattered on the sidewalks

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicJewish Identity and SocietyFrench-language works237,207