Terrorism, Individual Security, and the Role of the Military: a Reply to Liotta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract P. H. Liotta employs a boomerang analogy in an attempt to demonstrate the danger that may result if policymaking post-9/11 does not acknowledge a convergence of security concerns and carefully balance regard for the protection of the state with renewed attention to the security of individual human beings. Despite the attraction of the boomerang analogy as a policymaking aid, inconsistencies in the author's treatment of terrorism as a security concern, some undeveloped or unsubstantiated contentions and concepts, and a general underestimation of the utility of military forces in addressing dangers to the individual in addition to dangers to the state unfortunately diminish the amount of sound policy advice to be garnered from the article.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.063 | 0.057 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".