MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101359916

Military Coalitions in War and Peace: NATO and the Greek-Turkish Conflict 1952 – 1989

2012· article· en· W2101359916 on OpenAlex
Stefan Brenner

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBalkan and Eastern European Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceCompromiseTurkishInstitutionPolitical scienceCold warLawPublic administrationPolitical economySociologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an examination of the way in which the North Atlantic Alliance handled conflicts between members of it against the background of the Cold War and concludes that even though the North Atlantic Alliance is unable to resolve conflicts among its members simply on account of its existence, it has been able to contain them in the long term. This is in part due to a considerable degree on the skill of the NATO Secretary General, on the unity and willingness of the North Atlantic Council, and on high-level military authorities such as SACEUR. Being an institution, the alliance in addition had the advantage of having bodies like the NATO Council which held permanent sessions or an integrated command structure and was able to use them over a long period to gradually force the two parties to the conflict to be prepared to do something and accept some compromise.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.177 · 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