MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074246048 · doi:10.1080/13623690701775205

Economic sanctions: the kinder, gentler alternative?

2008· review· en· W2074246048 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

VenueMedicine Conflict & Survival · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctionsCoercion (linguistics)Economic sanctionsRealmPolitical scienceSiegeLawLaw and economicsPolitical economyInternational communityEconomicsPoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic sanctions are often considered to be a legitimate, more peaceful alternative to war. Using examples, particularly that of Iraq, it is evident that this is not necessarily so. As attempts are made to design coercion on nation states short of war, we must heed these examples and consider sanctions as a form of siege warfare. This paper attempts to refine criteria to allow the imposition of sanctions. These would be similar to those allowing the imposition of war. In the realm of international governance, not only must sanctions be employed by the authority of international society, after other less coercive measures have been attempted, they must be supported by the people whom they are meant to protect, and efforts must be made to minimise and to monitor their consequences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.135 · 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