Game Theory in Israel’s Relation with the Palestinian Authority: Study of Israel’s Withdrawal to Borders of the Year 1967, a Model (1993-2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the concept of game theory, its objectives and its elements. It also reviews the Israeli Palestinian treaties and the international resolutions related to the issue of the Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories on the basis of borders of 4 June 1967 including Jerusalem, as one of the core issues for reaching a final status agreement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, the declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state, ending the state of conflict between the two sides and reaching the stage of peaceful coexistence. The review involves clarifying the instruments and the techniques upon which Israel propped in applying this theory in its relation with the Palestinian Authority, and analysing the extent of gains or less achieved by both sides in this issue, in accordance with the concept of zero theory, or non- zero theory based games. The study had deduced that Israel confined in its strategy to employing the method of zero game with the Palestinian National Authority considering itself the stronger party who is able to exerting its pressures to achieve the greatest amount of gains, but the Palestinian leadership could not, till this moment achieve any gains rather the relinquishment it made by signing the Oslo Agreement were followed by subsequent relinquishment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".