Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mean Times report asserts that humanitarians should rely on private security companies (PSCs) to provide security for humanitarians and/or their operations which, despite the growing need, state militaries and international peacekeeping forces are increasingly unable or unwilling to provide. However, does the potential exist for PSCs to take the place of public security providers? Can PSCs secure the “humanitarian space"? The author argues that while PSCs have been seemingly proficient in recent tasks, the industry to date does not have the requisite organizational structure, material capacity, or legitimacy. Spearin also asserts that in the long term, while PSCs might arguably solve some security concerns for humanitarians, they raise a host of other problems. Namely, PSC/humanitarian interaction might 1) limit the provision of humanitarian assistance on the basis of cost; 2) subject humanitarians to the financial demands and business pursuits of PSCs and; 3) provide an excuse for other parties to free themselves from humanitarian obligations and to disengage from the search for political solutions to the root causes of humanitarian crises. In sum, the private security option, while having some beneficial aspects, is not a panacea for humanitarians due to its unique effects on securing the humanitarian space and its consequent impact on the humanitarian ethic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".