MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154115272 · doi:10.1177/0095327x0102700402

Patterns in Liberal Democratic Civil-Military Relations

2001· article· en· W2154115272 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas L. Bland

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeCivil–military relationsDemocracyState (computer science)Political scienceLawLaw and economicsLiberal democracyControl (management)SociologyPublic administrationManagementEconomicsPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to "the regime theory of civil-military relations," responsibilities for such relations are conditioned in every state by a nationally evolved regime of "principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge" in matters of civil-military relations. This article amplifies this theory by setting out a normative, Westminster-based model of the regime that provides the legal, regulatory, traditional, and institutional structures for civil-military relations in liberal democracies. The author contends that the importance of controlling behavior has been eclipsed in many civil control progams in emerging democracies because of a drive to build the hardware of civil-military relations while ignoring or incompletely installing first the regime, the software, that supports them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations120
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicWar, Ethics, and JustificationFrench-language works237,207