American-Israeli Relations: Context and Prospects of Military Cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses some aspects of the U.S. strategy for expanding military cooperation with Israel. A review is given of the Memorandums of Understanding adopted by different administrations in the field of security, an analysis is made of the legal framework and the amount of military assistance provided to Israel in the period under review. A comparative analysis of the positions of the United States and Israel regarding the advisability of concluding a new military agreement - a treaty on mutual defense. Its results showed that there is no consensus among Israeli politicians, and in the US expert community this idea is supported in order to obtain additional benefits from an alliance with Israel. According to the author, the probability of concluding an agreement on mutual defense in the near future is not high. It was noted that the interest of leading American scientific centers in developing recommendations on joint counteraction to the growth of Russia's influence in the Middle East was increased. It is predicted that the United States in the context of the new national defense strategy (2018) will more actively coordinate its policy with Israel in order to prevent the growth of Russian influence in the region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".