MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155069750 · doi:10.1177/1354066107074283

Peacekeeping: Organized Hypocrisy?

2007· article· en· W2155069750 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of International Relations · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypocrisyPeacekeepingPolitical scienceCold warPhenomenonPolitical economySociologyLaw and economicsLawEpistemologyPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UN has been accused of hypocrisy — failing to act in accordance with the ideals it espouses — in post-Cold War peacekeeping missions. This article argues that such inconsistency can arise from ‘organized hypocrisy’, a phenomenon identified by organization theorists in which organizations respond to conflicting pressures in external environments through contradictory actions and statements. Organized hypocrisy may have both positive and negative effects on peacekeeping. On the one hand, it may produce or exacerbate gaps between commitments and resources, undermine reforms if they are decoupled from practice, and impede efforts to mitigate harmful peacekeeping externalities. On the other hand, organized hypocrisy may enable the UN, or regional organizations, to manage irreconcilable pressures that might otherwise render the organization incapable of effective action and threaten its survival. This article explains and develops the concept of organized hypocrisy, and apples it to post-Cold War peace operations.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.301 · 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