‘You don’t need to love us’: Civil-Military Relations in Afghanistan, 2002–13
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the growing involvement of militaries in the delivery of assistance in conflict-affected areas under the rubric of stabilisation or comprehensive approaches has become a key concern for humanitarian agencies, raising questions about the adequacy of existing guidance and current approaches to civil-military coordination. In order to better understand the challenges of principled and effective dialogue between military forces and independent humanitarian actors in the context of combined international and national military forces pursuing stabilisation, this article charts the evolution of the civil-military dialogue in Afghanistan from 2002 until 2012. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with a range of former staff of aid agency, military, and donor organisations who were present in Afghanistan in this period as well as audits, official guidelines, and other written documents, this article provides an analytical overview of the development of stabilisation approaches in Afghanistan and the strategies aid agencies pursued in response, in particular the trajectory of mechanisms for structured dialogue. Lastly, it identifies several implications that can be drawn from this experience for aid agencies, NATO, and troop contributing nations.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it