MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985033627 · doi:10.1017/s1537592705880259

Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency

2005· article· en· W1985033627 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Stubbs

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Politics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)PoliticsConstructivePolitical scienceGuerrilla warfareCitizen journalismSpanish Civil WarPolitical economySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency. By Anthony James Joes. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2004. 360p. $35.00. At the end of this book, Anthony James Joes has written a two-page epilogue entitled “Conflict in Iraq,” which notes the enormous task that the U.S. government has set itself in the long-term construction of a democratic order in the face of violent opposition and internal social conflict. And while the bulk of the book was obviously written prior to the war in Iraq, it can be read as a constructive critique of U.S. counterinsurgency policy in the months following the invasion. Joes draws on a wide range of cases from over two centuries of guerrilla warfare to illustrate what he sees as the key reasons for the success or failure of numerous counterinsurgency campaigns. His thoughtful and informative analysis provides a useful basis for a comparative perspective that has been largely absent from many of the assessments of the guerrilla war in Iraq and America's counterinsurgency policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on PoliticsSame topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207