Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION On December 16, 2005, the New York Times ran an article revealing that the Bush Administration had, in the months immediately following the attacks of September 11, secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor the international telephone and email communications of "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants in an effort to track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to al Qaeda." 1 The resulting firestorm from the disclosure was extremely fierce as civil liberties activists, scholars and pundits from all political perspectives weighed in on the legality and constitutionality of the surveillance program. President Bush and members of his administration, including United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, quickly offered arguments supporting the operation. The main thrust of the administration's defense--and the argument considered herein--of the NSA surveillance program is that "the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) [passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks] places the President at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the NSA activities." 2 In essence, the administration is arguing that by authorizing the President to use force against those who were involved in any way in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress declared war against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and by doing so gave the President power to "intercept international communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda or ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.010 |
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".