Review of Recommended Peaceful Projects and Contracts for Israeli-Palestine Conflict in Terms of International Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most complex and longest conflict in history. The problem which officially recognized with UN resolution 1947 and creation of two countries ,was the initial point of consistent and continuous conflict. This is the beginning of wars, creation of movement, contracts and peace projects. Mentioning these contracts and plans and investigating the importance of its provisions could answer to the lack of permanent peace as well as the most important cases of parties. Some of these projects include the Camp David proposal, Fahd, Fez, Reagan, Mubarak, Madrid, Oslo, Maryland, Sharm el-Sheikh. Each one ,according to political and its historical position is accepted, rejected, or partially accepted by the parties that led to the creation of the conditions and obligations for the parties of the conflict. Despite all the peace plans and agreements, parties did not agree on a comprehensive plan for the establishment of lasting peace in the region the. In fact, it seems as long as there is no determination beyond the interests of the Palestinian-Israeli groups and parties there, getting to the ultimate goal which is the sustainable peace, is elusive and this destructive cycle of war and peace will continue.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".