In the shadow of the mountain : a historical re-evaluation of the 1988 Outremont dispute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".