MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066798839 · doi:10.1080/17502977.2012.655626

Peacekeeping Reform: Managing Change in an Organized Anarchy

2012· article· en· W2066798839 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intervention and Statebuilding · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingBureaucracyPublic administrationPrincipal (computer security)Field (mathematics)Process (computing)InstitutionalismSociologyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent administrative reform initiatives at the UN Secretariat, including reforms of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), have reflected, and been formulated in the language of, models and standards drawn from the fields of management and public administration. Theories of rational design, principal-agent relations, sociological institutionalism, and garbage can processes offer divergent explanations for this phenomenon. Through a case study of the adoption of matrix management practices in the UN Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support, this article investigate the process and mechanisms by which theoretical concepts, standards, and models of management in organisations, largely derived from the corporate world, are imported and applied to the peace operations bureaucracy. I argue that the establishment of Integrated Operational Teams (IOTs) in the UN Secretariat is consistent with a garbage can model of peacekeeping reform.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.343 · 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