MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146564110

Swiss Neutrality Examined: Model, Exception or Both?

2014· article· en· W2146564110 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. L. E. Dreyer, Neal G. Jesse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutralityPosition (finance)Political scienceState (computer science)LawHavenLaw and economicsSociologyEconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neutrality is a difficult position to maintain in a hostile international system. Switzerland is often seen as a successful case of neutrality, managing to both remain neutral and avoid conflict for centuries. This paper examines the possible reasons for the success of Swiss neutrality. It also positions the Swiss experience in comparison to other neutral states. Building upon and consolidating previous research and thought, we define three attributes that allow the Swiss to successfully maintain their neutrality. First is the armed deterrent worked into the national culture; armed neutrality is not just a policy position but a way of life for many Swiss. Second is the idea of Swiss neutrality as a collective good in that Switzerland is a safe haven for humanitarian and diplomatic exchanges. Finally the Swiss benefit from a history of neutrality that has been enshrined into international law and custom. We conclude by noting that the experience of Swiss neutrality is not normal, rather it is a successful outlier that has succeeded in preserving its status in times of war and peace. Moreover, we posit that exploring the reasons for its success can help us understand neutrality better and also the potential of small state foreign policy. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military StrategiesFrench-language works237,207