MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012472042 · doi:10.1080/14702430802673310

Strategic Fusion: What Lessons for International Counterterrorism?

2009· article· en· W2012472042 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDefence Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismPoliticsInternational relationsGrand strategySociologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes An original version of this article was presented at the Joint Conference of the International Security and Arms Control Section (ISAC) of the American Political Science Association/ International Security Studies Section (ISSS) of the International Studies Association, in Montreal (Quebec), Canada, 19–20 Oct. 2007. This article was completed before Israel began Operation ‘Cast Lead’ against Hamas in the Gaza Strip on 27 Dec. 2008. 1 Gareth Morgan, Images of Organization (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2006). 2 Boaz Ganor, ‘Terror as a Strategy of Psychological Warfare’, in Thomas J. Badley (ed.), Violence and Terrorism, Annual Editions 04/05, 7th ed. (Guilford, CT: McGraw‐Hill/Dushkin 2004) p.5 of pp.5–8. Also see Institute for Counter‐Terrorism, Herzliya, Israel, 〈www.ict.org.il〉. 3 Brigitte L. Nacos, Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding Threats and Responses in the Post‐9/11 World (New York: Pearson Longman 2006) p.259. 4 Col. Thomas X. Hammes, USMC, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century (St Paul, MN: Zenith Press 2006) p. 222. 5 Ganor, ‘Terror as a Strategy of Psychological Warfare’, p.6. 6 Ibid. 7 Paul Gordon Lauren, Gordon A. Craig and Alexander L. George, Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Challenges of Our Time, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford UP 2007) p.141. 8 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War [c411 BC], trans. Walter Blanco (New York: Norton 1998) p.465. 9 Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics ( Princeton UP 1976) p.217. 10 Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Relations (New York: Cambridge UP 1999) p.375. 11 Ibid. 12 Roger W. Barnett, Asymmetrical Warfare: Today’s Challenge to US Military Power (Washington DC: Brassey’s 2003) p.73. 13 Robert M. Clark, Intelligence Analysis: A Target‐Centric Approach (Washington DC: CQ Press 2004), p.204. 14 Avi Dicter, Address at the International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference, Boston, USA, Innovation Exchange, No. 13 (Winter 2006–2007), Ministry of Public Safety, Israel, p.8. 15 Benjamin Schwarz, ‘Will Israel Live to 100?’, Atlantic Monthly (May 2005) pp.1–4, 〈www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200505/schwarz〉. 16 Ibid., p.3. 17 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Currents and Crosscurrents of Radical Islam: A Report of the CSIS Trans‐Atlantic Dialogue on Terrorism (Washington DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies 2006) p.5, 〈www.csis.org〉. 18 Ibid., p.17. 19 Debra D. Zedalis, Female Suicide Bombers: A Report (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute/ US Army War College June 2004) p.13, 〈www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/〉. 20 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Currents and Crosscurrents of Radical Islam (note 17) p.5. 21 Robert Jervis, ‘Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case of Iraq’, Journal of Strategic Studies 29/1 (Feb. 2006) p.26. 22 Ibid., p.26.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.296 · 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