Mark Sidel: Regulation of the Voluntary Sector: Freedom and Security in an Era of Uncertainty, Routledge, Abingdon, 2010, 168 pp., references, index, £19.99 (paperback) £75.00 (hardback)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Have we gone too far in enacting laws, promulgating regulations and announcing policies that threaten freedom of association, either now or 'in waiting' for the future?It is a difficult question that Sidel seeks to answer, at least according to the back matter of this volume of essays on the recent history of regulation of the voluntary sector.Several of the essays in the volume have been published earlier, such as the chapter on the US and India.The addition of new essays on the UK, Canada, and the European Union make for a volume rich in details on the impacts of counter terrorism law around the world.These impacts have been profound.Following the 9/11 attacks, states around the world have broadened their surveillance of voluntary sector organizations in order to prevent future acts of terrorism.Each chapter deals with the specifics of this proliferation of counter terrorism law in a country.Cases of suspected organizations are documented, putting the reader in the shoes of a government agent trying to assess the level of terrorist threats.Along the way the reader learns a lot about the structure of the voluntary sector, the regulation of charities, and definitions of terrorism.Sidel defends the rights of citizens to freely associate themselves, pitting that right against the efforts of governments to prevent terrorism.After the 9/11, attacks many governments have implemented new legislation that goes well beyond previous legislation.Counter terrorism financing laws that have been enacted around the world have put voluntary sector organizations under closer scrutiny and have restricted their operations.The consequences of these laws have been far reaching and sometimes unexpected, as the book illustrates.An example (not given in the book) is that academic research on philanthropy in the Netherlands came under supervision of a unit at the Ministry of Justice.The consequences discussed in the book are those that pose difficulties for voluntary sector organizations.International relief organizations working in countries where terrorists are trained or
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.019 |
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".