MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive Management in an Enduring International Rivalry: The Case of India and Pakistan

2009· article· en· W2049574340 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Suedfeld, Rajiv S. Jhangiani

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTerrorismRivalryHostilityCognitionCitizen journalismScale (ratio)Guerrilla warfarePsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLawGeographyPoliticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using integrative complexity scoring, the current study addresses how communications by leaders of India and Pakistan have revealed their information processing and decision‐making strategies. The hostility between India and Pakistan started with the official creation of the two states and has lasted through more than a half‐century. It has been marked by four full‐scale wars and almost constant ethnopolitical, terrorist, and guerrilla violence. It is one of the most enduring and bloody binational rivalries of recent decades. Shared aspects of history and culture make the comparisons relatively free of confounding factors. In common with previous findings, complexity scores have shown reliable associations with impending war and with continued peace (or low‐intensity conflict).

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207