MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161770413 · doi:10.82308/52584

In the shadow of the mountain : a historical re-evaluation of the 1988 Outremont dispute

2003· dissertation· en· W7161770413 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dana Herman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish Identity and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)JudaismLeagueNarrativeEntitlement (fair division)Work (physics)Zoning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work is a historical re-evaluation of the 1988 Outremont dispute that began as a small municipal affair involving two Hasidic congregations, Congregation Amour Pour Israel and Congregation Munchos Elozar-Munkatz. Both groups failed in their attempts to change a zoning bylaw that would allow the former to construct a synagogue at 1035 Saint-Viateur and the latter to retain its synagogue at 1030 Saint-Viateur. By the time it ended, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Human Rights League of B'nai Brith had become involved in mediating the dispute and responding to the anti-Hasidic stance expressed by some francophone residents of Outremont and a number of journalists. Although several scholars have examined this incident, it has been secondary to other issues. Moreover, a comprehensive review of the scholarly literature written on the controversy shows that scholars' focus on the media fallout necessarily omits key elements of the incident: the historical narrative of the municipal vote, the extent of Jewish organizational involvement, the larger press reaction to the anti-Hasidic stance, and the positions taken by the Hasidim and the municipal officials themselves. This historical approach provides inclusion and analysis of these issues. Finally, a review of the literature written on Hasidim in Canada places this re-evaluation in its proper scholarly context.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicJewish Identity and SocietyFrench-language works237,207