Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Humanitarianism rivals security in its ability to legitimize emergency measures, and has also proven to be as ambiguous and open to abuse. In this article, humanitarianism is reconceptualized as a sector of securitization, like state and societal securitization, meaning that it is a structured field of practice that draws on existing discourses and institutions to enable the implementation of emergency measures. This reconceptualization contributes to the theory of securitization by expanding its applicability beyond states and societies to humans as referent objects, but also by challenging the Copenhagen School’s conceptualization of normality/exceptionality at the domestic and international levels. Drawing on the humanitarian securitization of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the article demonstrates how the structured security field of humanitarianism privileges particular actors in speaking to human insecurity, and how the humanitarian discourse reifies and reinforces a monolithic form of human identity. The article draws attention to the process of representing developments as humanitarian emergencies and uses the framework of securitization to critically examine the discourses, practices and agents of humanitarianism.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".