Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal welcomes comments from its readers. All communications should be addressed Editor bear full name address of writer. A selection of those received will be published periodically in these columns. When a comment is received regarding an article or review published in Journal, we feel it merits serious consideration, author will be given option respond in kind. As a matter of policy, such exchanges are normally limited one round. Journal reserves right edit or abridge contributions. In addition letters of comment, communications on other information of interest will be printed as space is available. To Editor: I write in response article by Prof. Hilde Henriksen Waage, The Winner Takes All: 1949 Island of Rhodes Armistice Negotiations Revisited, (The Middle Journal, Vol. 65, No. 2, Spring, 2011). subject article contains so many factual errors that, once listed, they will surely demonstrate untenability of argument which she derives from them. Here are some of more blatant ones: pp. 289-290: Secretary General Lie passing information from confidential negotiations American delegations at [She confuses American Section of Jewish Agency with US Government delegation.] p. 289: Lie gave all of Bunche's reports secretly to American delegation [Actually, he did so for representatives of US, France, Turkey, who comprised membership of UN's Palestine Conciliation Commission [PCC], which was coordinating with Acting Mediator Bunche, former seeking establish negotiations for a final peace settlement, while Bunche, of course, in Rhodes was working toward agreements on military armistices.] p. 290: (a) UN Security Council Resolution 62 of November 16, 1948 marked end of efforts negotiate a permanent peace between Israel its Arab neighbors; instead, goal now was only armistices, and not peace agreements. ... peace negotiations were expected commence within a year. [As noted, retained goal of a final peace by establishing PCC, whereas Rhodes negotiations were in realistic recognition that a prerequisite for peace was establishment of a more stable military situation than could be obtained by mere cease-fires truces. There was no one year delay in efforts, through PCC, start peace negotiations.] (b) William Epstein, a Jewish member of Canadian mission helped Israel secretly engineer Security Council resolution of November 16, 1948. [This charge contains a factual inaccuracy compounded by a rather unpleasant innuendo based on mere assumption of a person's religion. factual error is that Epstein was actually a official on Bunche's staff. innuendo is of a similar kind author's attributing Lie's efforts implement partition resolution his love of Jews ever since childhood - p. 288.] Passim: (a) author consistently mis-describes UK as on longer on the list of relevant actors in a position influence future outcome of conflict in Middle East - e.g., p. 286. Also on that page: Britain was pressing for Egypt retain parts of Negev desert. This betrays a profound misunderstanding of UK's goal of having Transjordan on Meditarranean coast near Suez Canal. p. 283: Fighting broke out again after expiration in July of first truce period. [The Arab States, not Israel, rejected extension of truce re-opened fighting.] p. 283: compromise solution worked out by mediator in June was never adopted by UN. [The author fails understand, or even note, that that plan was scratched in favor of a totally revised Bernadotte Plan submitted on eve of General Assembly in September.] p. 284: Eban was at this time Ambassador US UN. …
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 | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.281 | 0.266 |
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".