Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given Israel's long-term de facto sovereign control over the Occupied Territories, one may assess the presumptive 2011 Palestinian declaration of de facto statehood in terms of a secessionist dialogue. One thing that many Palestinians and Israelis would agree on, is that Israel is not a mother State. But Israel's resumption of West Bank and East Jerusalem Jewish settlement construction (in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention) exemplifies Israel's complete de facto sovereignty. Russia and the United States claim that the 2008 secessions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Kosovo were all secessions: supposedly preventing them from being models for any other secession. This is disputable. But assuming it were true, Palestine's secession would a fortiori qualify as a unique secession. Given the absence of a multilateral treaty on secession, one must continue to rely on Customary International Law (in the absence of an authoritative international judicial opinion on point) to speculate about the legitimacy of future secessions. In July 2010, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legitimacy of the secession of Kosovo. The majority opinion was flawed for two reasons: the majority (1) avoided answering the real question asked, and (2) failed to assess and apply the leading national case on point: the Canadian Supreme Court's Quebec Secession case. Applying a secessionist analysis would not solve the Palestinian problem. It would provide a legal tool for assessing the legitimacy of Palestine's presumptive 2011 declaration of de facto statehood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".