MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552918853

Conversations on Tap at Notre Dame

2010· article· en· W1552918853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Barnard

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchOnline - ND (The University of Notre Dame Australia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social justice, political violence and the motivations behind war were just some of the issues discussed at The University of Notre Dame Australia’s recent Conversations on Tap series at its Fremantle Campus. Peace and Social Justice Lecturer, Associate Professor Richard Matthews, of King’s University College, Western Ontario, was invited to examine the underlying justifications for political violence and to consider if there was a justifiable difference between defensive and pre-emptive action taken by States when held up to closer scrutiny. Discovering an appreciation of the importance of social justice issues following international reactions to the events of September 11, 2001, Associate Professor Matthew said various outrages at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Diego Garcia, Bagram AFB and many other sites convinced him of the need to learn and understand ongoing political violence. “I started with a project on torture, but I have gradually been led to appreciate the significance of economic and colonial factors in ongoing violence,” he said. “There are many causes of violence, including past historical grievances and individual and cultural trauma, but in my view, economic and geopolitical interests are the main causes.” In examining whether political violence was ever justifiable, Associate Professor Matthews said it was important to explore the motivations behind the action to gain a better understanding. “Wars are fought to secure State interests, and non-State interests, increasingly, whatever moral mask gets attached to a given situation,” he said. “I don’t believe Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought for the sake of women and human rights. They are really about transforming societies in a way that their architects believe are beneficial to their interests.” In answering questions regarding any possible exceptions to the rule, Associate Professor Matthews said he was highly dubious as to whether political violence was ever justified. “I do not have a developed position as to whether it might be justifiable in some circumstances,” he said. “In saying that, we construct a wide range of myths to justify our past participation in violence, as well as to ensure our continued support for, and participation in, contemporary and future violence.” Associate Professor Matthews said his anti-war stance informed his belief that all ongoing conflicts, particularly those occurring since 2001, were unjustified. Media Contact: Andrea Barnard (+61) 8 9433 0610, Mob (+61) 0408 959 138

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchOnline - ND (The University of Notre Dame Australia)Same topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207