MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081983238 · doi:10.1177/0192512109347211

The Gap of Legitimacies Syndrome: A Conceptual Framework

2010· article· en· W2081983238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yagil Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Political Science Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyLegitimationPoliticsLimitingPolitical sciencePolitical economySacrificeLaw and economicsDevelopment economicsPublic administrationSociologyLawEconomicsGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1970s, military policies in liberal democracies have been potentially affected by the gap of legitimacies syndrome, that is, the widening of the gap between high levels of political legitimacy for using force and low levels of social legitimacy for making the attendant sacrifices. Military policies are stretched between the poles of these values. While a high level of legitimation for using force encourages bellicosity, the attenuated legitimacy of sacrifice permits only low-cost military build-ups, both in economic and human terms. Deviations from this approach may recreate legitimacy problems. EU countries, as well as Canada and Australia, have managed to adopt a policy without a legitimacy gap by limiting their use of force, but, as countries that often activate their armed forces, the US and Israel have remained very much affected by this syndrome.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.061
Scholarly communication0.0150.029
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Political Science ReviewSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207