MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157765416 · doi:10.5334/sta.ct

Big Data and Peacebuilding

2013· article· en· W2157765416 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanjana Hattotuwa

Bibliographic record

VenueStability International Journal of Security and Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationPeacebuildingPeacekeepingFace (sociological concept)Big dataPolitical scienceTask (project management)Asynchronous communicationSocial mediaSociologyComputer scienceMedia studiesLawEngineeringSocial scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any peace process is an exercise in the negotiation of big data. From centuries old communal hagiography to the reams of official texts, media coverage and social media updates, peace negotiations generate data. Peacebuilding and peacekeeping today are informed by, often respond and contribute to big data. This is no easy task. As recently as a few years ago, before the term big data embraced the virtual on the web, what informed peace process design and implementation was in the physical domain – from contested borders and resources to background information in the form of text. The move from analogue, face-to-face negotiations to online, asynchronous, web-mediated negotiations – which can still include real world meetings – has profound implications for how peace is strengthened in fragile democracies.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStability International Journal of Security and DevelopmentSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207