MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171203479 · doi:10.1017/s0008423904450100

Ethics and Foreign Intervention

2004· article· en· W2171203479 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

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJus ad bellumHumanitarian interventionIntervention (counseling)LawUse of forcePolitical scienceDoctrineInternational lawSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethics and Foreign Intervention, Deen K. Chatterjee and Don E. Scheid, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. xiii, 301 The 1990s saw the gradual, but steady, expansion of the doctrine of humanitarian military intervention in places like northern Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. This process culminated in the 1999 Kosovo war which saw NATO bomb Serb targets to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. Ethics and Foreign Intervention uses the Kosovo case as its reference point to dissect the concept of humanitarian military intervention from a moral perspective. Although there are chapters on the legal implications of intervention, most notably the chapters by Tom Farer, Christine Chwaszcza, and Allen Buchanan on intervention and secession, the focus of this edited collection is to apply just war theory to the concept of humanitarian military intervention. George R. Lucas, Jr., even suggests that because the use of force in humanitarian cases is much closer to the use of force in domestic law enforcement than it is to traditional warfare the concepts of jus ad bellum and jus in bello need to be joined by jus ad pacem (or jus ad interventionem ).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.315 · 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