Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to use the concept of“political utility”to explain why and how the Canadian government has adopted“Human Security”not as a broad definition but as a narrow one. It is often said in policy studies that it is easy for policymakers to set up a clear policy goal and select the most effective means to achieve it when an issue is defined as narrowly as possible. This view is known as“policy relevance”. In fact, actual policymaking is always affected by politics. Political actors such as politicians, bureaucrats and interest-groups try to incorporate their own interests or beliefs in the policy process and to derive some political value from a policy. This is called as“political utility”in this paper. With regard to this view of the policy making process, one of the problems concerning“Human Security”is about its definition. “Human Security”was originally presented as a policy agenda in the“Human Development Reports”published by the United Nations Development Programme（UNDP）in 1994. UNDP defines“Human Security”as safety from various kinds of threats such as chronic poverty, disease, unemployment, environmental pollution, and repression. “Human Security”is also divided into two policy goals;“freedom from want”and“freedom from fear”. The latter mainly focuses on the protection of people in situations of internal conflict while the former emphasizes development agenda such as alleviation of economic disparities and reduction of poverty. Some policymakers claim“Human Security”to be the goal of their country’s foreign policy, but this is problematical because the concept is too ambiguous to provide the policymakers with a clear principle for prioritizing among many competing foreign policy issues. Therefore, they redefine“Human Security”focusing only on“freedom from fear”. This is called a narrow definition in comparison with abroad definition used by UNDP. The Canadian government is one of the most active promoters of the narrow definition, claiming it is more practicable as a policy instrument. It puts the focus of policy on the establishment of international norms and practical agenda to prevent armed conflict and to rebuild post-conflict governance structures. This article examines the policy process of Canada from 1994 to 2000. It shows how the concept of“political utility”with regard to financial reform, conflict of interest between departments and foreign minister’s interests or ambitions can be used to explain the positioning of“Human Security”within the entirety of Canadian foreign policy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".