A Means to What End? Why PRTS are Peripheral to the Bigger Political Challenges in Afghanistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The civil-military relationship in the political context of Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban has fulfilled a number of functions, not all of them formally acknowledged. From 2002, it was heavily promoted by the international community within and beyond Afghanistan as a key means of facilitating tangible results in reconstruction and development and in so doing, improving the security situation. Moreover, the phased expansion of NATO forces throughout the country from 2003 onwards was primarily conducted via ‘Provincial Reconstruction Teams’ (PRTs), which came to epitomize the civil military approach in Afghanistan. The first PRT was operational in Gardez, in the east, by January 2003; over four years later, twenty-five PRTs, led by thirteen different nations, were located in provinces throughout the country. The central assumptions informing the 2002 PRT plan were that reconstruction and development would be a primary means of expanding the central government’s authority beyond Kabul and would provide a security dividend. There was no detailed strategic plan for PRTs via which the PRTs were to reach their broadly stated
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".