Bibliographic record
Abstract
Israel's construction of a 670 kilometre wall and barrier through the West Bank and East Jerusalem has generated international political controversy, and two significant judicial rulings. In July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its Advisory Opinion to the United Nations General Assembly, stating that the Separation Wall violated international human rights and humanitarian law, and proposing that Israel immediately dismantle it, with reparations to its victims. The week before, the Israeli Supreme Court released its decision in Beit Sourik Village Council vs Israel, finding that the Wall complied in principle with legal norms, but portions of it must be re-located to reduce avoidable harm to Palestinian villages. This article critically assesses the two decisions against the requirements of international law. It also tracks the response of the international community to Israel's continued construction of the Wall in the aftermath of these two judicial rulings.
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 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".