MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985864931 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2012.674383

Orders and borders: Unipolarity and the issue of homeland security

2012· article· en· W1985864931 on OpenAlexaffabout
David G. Haglund

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomelandHomeland securityPolitical scienceTheme (computing)Order (exchange)Security studiesCold warPoliticsInternational relationsNational securityPolitical economyLaw and economicsLawSociologyTerrorismEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much has been written about the ordering principle known as “unipolarity” in international politics. Ever since the prospect of “systemic change” first began to be glimpsed in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War's ending, controversy has swirled about whether the international system, once so easily styled as a “bipolar” order, had now become by default a unipolar one, and if it had, many turned to wondering what its implications must be. This article argues that unipolarity, while on the wane, continues to be a reasonably accurate label for the current structure of that international system, and moreover that it possesses implications for the management of the Canada-US border, in an era when “homeland security” has become an important theme in discussions of North American security.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Foreign Policy JournalSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207