Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Journal welcomes comments from its readers. All communications should be addressed Editor bear full name address of writer. A selection of those received will be published periodically in these columns. When a comment is received regarding an article or review published in Journal, we feel it merits serious consideration, author will be given option respond in kind. As a matter of policy, such exchanges are normally limited one round. Journal reserves right edit or abridge contributions. In addition letters of comment, communications on other information of interest will be printed as space is available. To Editor: I write in response article by Prof. Hilde Henriksen Waage, The Winner Takes All: 1949 Island of Rhodes Armistice Negotiations Revisited, (The Middle Journal, Vol. 65, No. 2, Spring, 2011). subject article contains so many factual errors that, once listed, they will surely demonstrate untenability of argument which she derives from them. Here are some of more blatant ones: pp. 289-290: Secretary General Lie passing information from confidential negotiations American delegations at [She confuses American Section of Jewish Agency with US Government delegation.] p. 289: Lie gave all of Bunche's reports secretly to American delegation [Actually, he did so for representatives of US, France, Turkey, who comprised membership of UN's Palestine Conciliation Commission [PCC], which was coordinating with Acting Mediator Bunche, former seeking establish negotiations for a final peace settlement, while Bunche, of course, in Rhodes was working toward agreements on military armistices.] p. 290: (a) UN Security Council Resolution 62 of November 16, 1948 marked end of efforts negotiate a permanent peace between Israel its Arab neighbors; instead, goal now was only armistices, and not peace agreements. ... peace negotiations were expected commence within a year. [As noted, retained goal of a final peace by establishing PCC, whereas Rhodes negotiations were in realistic recognition that a prerequisite for peace was establishment of a more stable military situation than could be obtained by mere cease-fires truces. There was no one year delay in efforts, through PCC, start peace negotiations.] (b) William Epstein, a Jewish member of Canadian mission helped Israel secretly engineer Security Council resolution of November 16, 1948. [This charge contains a factual inaccuracy compounded by a rather unpleasant innuendo based on mere assumption of a person's religion. factual error is that Epstein was actually a official on Bunche's staff. innuendo is of a similar kind author's attributing Lie's efforts implement partition resolution his love of Jews ever since childhood - p. 288.] Passim: (a) author consistently mis-describes UK as on longer on the list of relevant actors in a position influence future outcome of conflict in Middle East - e.g., p. 286. Also on that page: Britain was pressing for Egypt retain parts of Negev desert. This betrays a profound misunderstanding of UK's goal of having Transjordan on Meditarranean coast near Suez Canal. p. 283: Fighting broke out again after expiration in July of first truce period. [The Arab States, not Israel, rejected extension of truce re-opened fighting.] p. 283: compromise solution worked out by mediator in June was never adopted by UN. [The author fails understand, or even note, that that plan was scratched in favor of a totally revised Bernadotte Plan submitted on eve of General Assembly in September.] p. 284: Eban was at this time Ambassador US UN. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,281 | 0,266 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».