Penny Sinanoglou. <i>Partitioning Palestine: British Policymaking at the End of Empire</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 1936, the majority Arab population of Palestine rose up in widespread demonstrations against two decades of British imperial rule and its support for Zionist efforts to build a Jewish national home. In arranging a ceasefire, London promised a commission of inquiry. Chaired by Lord Peel, the commission’s 1937 report concluded that Palestinian and Zionist aspirations were irreconcilable and that Britain’s mandate must end. The report also recommended, in a cursory presentation tacked on at the end, that Palestine be partitioned into a Jewish state and an Arab state (subject to continued British rule over the holy sites of Jerusalem and Bethlehem). Officials in London responded positively to the idea at first but, recognizing that the Peel proposal represented little more than a hurried sketch of partition, appointed yet another commission whose task it was to recommend a feasible plan. The 1938 Woodhead commission, however, issued a damning verdict on the whole idea of partition. Basing itself on reams of empirical and technical data that had been unavailable to Peel, the Woodhead report concluded that it was, in fact, impossible to separate the two closely intertwined populations in any equitable or practical way. In the words of one of the Woodhead commissioners, “It may be said that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, but it would not be easy to discover an omelette in any possible scheme of partition.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.012 |
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".