MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036732961 · doi:10.1177/0010836706060930

Despair is Not Enough

2006· article· en· W2036732961 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCooperation and Conflict · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStalemateEmotiveRipenessPerceptionModerationPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologySociologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In what ways does intensified violence change attitudes in protracted conflicts? When does it harden attitudes and when does it moderate them? This question is tested for the post-1967 period in Israeli–Palestinian relations, with emphasis on the two intifadaperiods (1987–93 and 2000 to the present). A clear distinction emerges between ‘expressive’ issues, those with a short-term focus and a high emotive content, and the ‘primary’ issues in the conflict. Violence produced a hardening of positions on expressive issues in both intifadaperiods, as would be predicted in escalation theories. On primary issues, however, violence engendered moderation in the search for an overall solution, in line with ‘ripeness’ theory, when the two major conditions of ‘ripeness’ — perceptions of a mutually hurting stalemate and a ‘way out’ — were met. Thus the first intifadaaccelerated moderating trends on primary issues, while in the second intifada,where perception of a ‘way out’ was much weaker, attitudes on basic issues did not moderate until a basic structural change occurred in late 2004.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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