The double spine and the blue boulevard plans: morphological visions and territorial politics of Israeli expansionism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the aftermath of the 1967 War, which tripled the territory under Israel’s control, architects Avraham Wachman and Michael Burt responded to the new spatial dimensions of Israel’s occupied territories with settlement proposals grounded in their morphological studies at the Technion. Wachman’s Double Spine Plan proposed settling the eastern frontier with a line of Jewish settlements parallel to the Mediterranean coastal spine with the goal of stabilizing Israeli territorial control. Burt’s westward-facing Blue Boulevard Plan envisioned artificial islands composed of prefabricated surfaces along the Mediterranean coast with the goal of offering new land to address land scarcity. Although neither plan was realized, Wachman’s proposal was considered at the highest governmental levels when it was proposed in the 1970s, while Burt continues to advocate for his vision today. Drawing on newly uncovered archival materials, this study reveals that the architectural discourse and milieu in which both worked led them to conceptualize the territorial dimension of the plan as a process that evolves according to scientific laws. Their plans were therefore diagrams directing territorial expansions rather than documents of negotiated policy. However, their seemingly neutral scientific solutions reveal contradictory positions on expansionism, exposing the political logic embedded in their morphological practices.
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".