Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few if any states in the world have faced challenges to their legitimacy and existence like the State of Israel. Many new states in the Third World emerged out of a crucible of struggle and violence waged against an imperial power (though a majority did not), but this fledgling state was forced simultaneously into both a communal war and a war against other territorial states. Israel fought at least three different types of foes – the Palestinian Arab community that threatened communication lines between the key Jewish population centers (particularly in the early stages of the 1948 war), Arab irregular forces (of which the Muslim Brethren on the southern front were arguably the most effective), and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. The latter were by far the most formidable contestants (Ziv and Gelber 1999). Suffice it to say that the forces fielded by Israel’s major military foe, Egypt, penetrated within twenty miles of Tel-Aviv (the major Jewish population center) at the furthest point of their advance. At the other point of vulnerability, the Jordanian Arab Legion overwhelmed Israel’s newly established army in the Jewish Quarter in the old city of Jerusalem (ibid.). Rarer still did such a war of independence continue for over fifty years, as is the case between Syria and Lebanon and Israel (which are, at least in a formal sense, still at war). Syria, in fact, continues through its Hizbullah proxies to wage war against it until the very act of writing. Israel’s War of Independence ended with the signing of mere armistices rather than peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. All three states, despite the bitter disagreements among them, were members of the Arab League, which, as a sizeable and growing bloc, dedicated itself collectively to undoing the results of the 1948 war, the most important of which was the creation of the Jewish state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".