MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563852504 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v10n1p50

Ideological Relationship between Neo-Conservative Government of George W. Bush and Israeli Government

2016· article· en· W2563852504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rouhollah Shahabi, Alireza Mashoori

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and Radicalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Administration (probate law)LawForeign policyPolitical economyNational securityPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

United States and Israel despite all the alliances and relationships among governments, has a special relationship. Various factors are United States of America support and help Israel and its special status of the country for America in particular was in Bush period. Political, economic and geographical factors..., which resulted Israel had special and unique place in the foreign policy of the United States. However, the role of religion and ideology in this relationship and its impact on support for Israel not ignored. George Bush is a Christian believes in his speeches frequently uses religious concepts. He argues that had a regular communication with God and takes over on a divine mission. This Bush’s religious beliefs is where express the support for Israel in the form of religious Evangelical and word concepts. Bush knows support for Israel as God intention and had a religious and apocalyptic view to Israel. The Bush administration formed the neoconservatives who tend much more support Israel. Ideological affinity George W. The Bush government with Israel is the factor that America political security supports from Israel increased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicIslamic Studies and RadicalismFrench-language works237,207