MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1903738972 · doi:10.5334/sta.gb

Containing Ebola: A Test for Post-Conflict Security Sector Reform in Sierra Leone

2015· article· en· W1903738972 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cathy Haenlein, Ashlee Godwin

Bibliographic record

VenueStability International Journal of Security and Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSierra leonePolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Security sector reformSpanish Civil WarEconomic growthPublic administrationDevelopment economicsPolitical economyGeographySociologyEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ebola has provided the greatest test of the Sierra Leonean security sector – and, in turn, of the UK-led reforms of the past ten-to-fifteen years. The performance of the country's security forces at the height of the crisis suggests that there are sound structures in place; however, Ebola has shown that the Government of Sierra Leone's national security architecture still lacks maturity in responding to such a scenario.Drawing on first-hand interviews with advisers on the ground, this article explores the Sierra Leone government’s response to the Ebola crisis and the performance of the security sector so far, within the wider context of UK-led security-sector reform (SSR) since the end of the civil war. In doing so, it highlights a number of lessons to have emerged from the crisis, exploring what these reveal about the nature of the reforms implemented since the end of the country's civil war. In turn, it explores what these suggest for future SSR, which continues to be a core component of the UK’s approach to development and overseas capacity-building.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStability International Journal of Security and DevelopmentSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207