Failed States: Why They Matter and What We Should do About Them
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Failed states are usually defined as those that are unable effectively to control their territory and comply with their international obligations. As such, they often pose a threat to their own populations and to international security. Failed states are of increased concern to Canadians, both because of the new UN doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, and because their threat to international security has been increased by the effects of global integration. In addition, the very process of globalization, coupled with the effects of climate change, may cause their numbers to grow. The cost of resuscitating a failed state, however, is so considerable that, where we can prevent them from occurring, we should do so. The difficulties faced by the United States in Iraq and by the international community in Afghanistan, should not obscure the fact that since the end of the Cold War the world has been largely successful in reducing the number of armed conflicts arising from state failure. Since the problem of failed states may get worse, and in any case is not going away, we likely cannot lessen, and may have to increase our efforts to respond to the threats they pose. To do so adequately, however, will require governments to maintain public support for such missions. The growing public dissatisfaction with Canadian intervention in Afghanistan makes it clear how difficult this can be. A key factor in keeping public backing would be to agree to take part in peace-building missions only under appropriate conditions, following a debate in parliament.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it