MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966234399 · doi:10.1080/13533310108413877

Private security companies and humanitarians: A corporate solution to securing humanitarian spaces?

2001· article· en· W1966234399 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Peacekeeping · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyPrivate securityBusinessState (computer science)Private sectorPoliticsPublic administrationPublic relationsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of the need for humanitarian organizations to have adequate security for their operations, private security companies are now filling the void left by state forces. Little analysis, however, has been made of the impact of private security companies on the delivery of post‐Cold War humanitarian assistance. To make this analysis, the article considers the changes in humanitarian activity, the relevant services offered by private security providers, the differing issues relating to legitimacy factors and financial and political implications, and the state of the mechanisms capable of bringing about positive change in the relationship between private security companies and humanitarian organizations. In the main, the article asserts that reliance on the private security option as currently endowed, organized, and managed, while pragmatic and not without its benefits, is a highly problematic solution for humanitarians.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.323
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