Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study illustrates how middle power states — such as Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway — have exercised leadership on the human security agenda, and thus challenges the realist view of middle powers as mere followers of great power leadership on global security issues. The hegemonic United States (US) is likely to counter any initiative that threatens its core national interest: the security of the American territory, institutions, and citizenry. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the US is more likely to oppose a middle power-led human security initiative if the initiative challenges the rights of American citizens protected under the US Constitution. A qualitative analysis of four human security initiatives provides support for the hypothesis. The US acquiesced to the formation of the Stand-by High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations (SHIRBRIG) and the ban on antipersonnel landmines (APLs), which did not pose threats to any constitutional rights. But Washington opposed the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the adoption of stricter regulations on the legal trade in small arms and light weapons (SALW), because these initiatives challenged specific constitutional rights of American citizens. The study examines a second hypothesis: that a middle power-led human security initiative is more likely to be successful if the middle powers engage in fast-track diplomacy rather than consensus-based diplomacy. The case studies demonstrate that the middle powers succeeded when they used fast-track diplomacy on the SHIRBRIG, APL, and ICC initiatives, but failed when they relied on consensus-based diplomacy on the SALW initiative.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".