MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053379331 · doi:10.1177/0095327x0002600207

Conscription in Scandinavia During the Last Quarter Century: Developments and Arguments

2000· article· en· W2053379331 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henning Bang Fuglsang Madsen Sørensen

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PeacekeepingCold warDemocracyPopulationPolitical scienceDeterrence theorySoftware deploymentLawDemographic economicsDemographyPolitical economyDevelopment economicsSociologyEconomicsHistoryPoliticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the empirical changes of conscription in Scandinavia since 1970 from four perspectives, i.e., the demography, economy, organization, and personnel that give Denmark, Sweden, and Norway a quite different conscription profile. No easy explanations are given for these changes which are products of complex and sometimes even contradictory decisions made at the national and organizational levels. Instead, the present conscription profiles of Denmark, and Sweden, and Norway are identified as one of three ideal reasons for using conscripts: Democracy, Deterrence, and Deployment abroad, the DDD-model. This theoretical model suggests both national and international reasons for the continuation of conscription and thus argues against reducing or abolishing conscription due to the end of the Cold War and relying, instead, on a professional army. In addition, conscripts may be better qualified for international peacekeeping missions than regulars because they can more easily identify with the local civil population. The announcement of the end of conscription as a result of the end of the Cold War, therefore, seems somewhat premature.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207