MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128842316 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2020.1869052

Talking with the PLO: Overcoming political challenges

2021· article· en· W3128842316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.N. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyPolitical scienceOfficerForeign policyRenunciationPoliticsTerrorismLawPublic administrationPolitical economySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until 1980, Canada had only very occasional dealings with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and often viewed the latter as an illegitimate body or terrorist organization. However, in 1980 the Department of External Affairs, recognizing that the PLO represented an important body of Palestinian opinion, and had become a major actor in Lebanon, assigned an officer (this author) to the Canadian Embassy in Beirut with instructions to develop dialogue with the PLO on political and security matters. This policy commentary briefly describes the evolution in Canadian policy toward fully accepting the legitimacy of the PLO as the Palestinian representative in the Middle East peace process. It describes the factors influencing the change in Canada's position, including the views of the international community, PLO acceptance in 1988 of Israel's existence, and Arafat's renunciation of terrorism. As a result, in March, 1989 Canada lifted remaining limits on official contacts with the PLO and accepted the Palestinian right of self-determination, thereby adopting a more balanced foreign policy. This led to Canada being accepted as a significant player in the Multilateral Peace Process, the chair (Gavel) of the Refugee Working Group and a member of the Multilateral Steering Committee.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Foreign Policy JournalSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207