Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any institution seeking selfpreservation faces a discrepancy and trade-off between its stated, idealistic, long-term ideology, and its compromising, immediate interests. The first is a source of popular legitimacy; the second ensures day-to-day survival. Hamas, an Islamist movement and the de facto government of the Gaza Strip, does not escape this dilemma. Hamas is a pragmatic, rational actor which knows that permanence violence toward Israel, though in line with its ideology, is not a sustainable policy. Hamas cannot afford the continual loss of human and material capital, and is accountable to foreign actors. Still, this ideological extremism results in the ideology–interests inconsistency being magnified. The movement thus has come up with innovative rhetorical strategies and justificatory discourses to bridge the gap. These bridging strategies can be explained in light of the distinction between fundamental and operative ideologies, as well as the theory of framing. The result of these necessary practices is that the ideological goals get blurred with immediate interests. This mix is what ultimately drives Hamas’ strategy and decisionmaking process.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".