MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Collective and State Violence in the <scp>P</scp>alestinian‐<scp>I</scp>sraeli Conflict: The Limits of Classical Rational‐Choice Theory

2012· article· fr· W1583444999 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Brym

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nombre d'observateurs continuent à adopter des variantes aux perspectives locales et restreintes de la théorie du choix rationnel, et ce en dépit de la nécessité d'une refonte de cette dernière pour l'adapter aux spécificités historiques et aux sensibilités culturelles de la région. Cet article démontre de façon empirique les limites de cette théorie du choix rationnel dans sa version classique en synthétisant une partie des résultats d'un projet de recherche mené récemment sur l'insurrection palestinienne et la réponse de l’État d’Israël au cours de la période 1987–2007. Une fois établie l'existence de plusieurs grands cycles de violence collective et étatique, considérés comme irréguliers dans la perspective de la théorie classique, il en ressort un modèle d'actions rationnelles liées à la situation qui augmente les variations de la fréquence des attaques suicides et des assassinats commandités par l’État. L'analyse mène à la conclusion selon laquelle bien que le comportement des insurgés et des responsables d’État soit rationnel, cette rationalité est étroitement liée au contexte culturel et historique, qui peut prendre plusieurs formes selon les situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207