MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144705421 · doi:10.1177/0967010610388210

The Public, the Private and the Evolution of Security Studies

2010· article· en· W2144705421 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueSecurity Dialogue · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringSecurity studiesState (computer science)PoliticsField (mathematics)Political sciencePublic securityCritical security studiesKey (lock)SociologyPublic administrationLawComputer securityNetwork security policyComputer scienceCloud computing security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article suggests adding the category of public/private to Buzan & Hansen’s (2009) account of the four central themes structuring security studies. By doing so, we can illuminate key parts of the field’s analytic and political development, and better appreciate the challenges that it confronts in analysing new phenomena, including transnational non-state violence and security privatization.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.073
Scholarly communication0.0220.024
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecurity DialogueSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207