MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051708169 · doi:10.1080/14781158.2014.911158

Evaluating ‘two-state condominialism’: a new approach to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict?

2014· article· en· W2051708169 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

VenueGlobal Change Peace & Security · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle EastState (computer science)Arab–Israeli conflictPolitical scienceConflict resolutionSociologyPolitical economyOperations researchComputer scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At a time when Israelis and Palestinians are gathering in Washington to consider peace in the Middle East, most attention is focused on the idea of a one-state or, more likely, two-state solution. A number of scholars, however, have recently developed a third approach which has been appropriately referred to as a ‘two-state condominialism’. This approach seeks to overcome the liabilities of the two existing approaches to solving the Middle East conflict while offering a number of its own advantages. Surprisingly, in spite of the similarities among their proposals, none of the authors make reference to, or even acknowledge each other. This article reviews these papers as a collective and considers whether they offer a realistic opportunity for peace in the Middle East.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.235 · 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