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 OpenAlexaff
Lou Pingeot

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.009

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Community Law ReviewSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207