MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503386236 · doi:10.1163/18719732-12341290

The United Nations Guidelines on the Use of Armed Private Security

2014· article· en· W1503386236 on OpenAlex
Lou Pingeot

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Community Law Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)AccountabilityBusinessPrivate securityPublic international lawInternational lawPublic relationsPublic administrationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The un is increasingly relying on private military and security companies ( pmsc s) for a wide range of services. Until recently, un use of pmsc s was not governed by systemwide rules and standards. The establishment of guidelines on the use of armed private security in late 2012 has led to greater accountability and transparency around this practice. The guidelines clarify the decision-making process and the criteria for the selection and hiring of companies providing armed security. However, they are overly reliant on self-regulation by pmsc s and remain limited, raising questions about their capacity to avoid companies with objectionable records and prevent potential incidents. Moreover, the guidelines raise concerns that the use of pmsc s by the un may become normalised, with yet unexamined effects on the organisation’s security policies and its image.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science 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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.131 · 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