MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2233438659 · doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12457

Introduction: the United Nations and targeted sanctions

2015· article· en· W2233438659 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

VenueInternational Affairs · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctionsPolitical scienceHarmEconomic sanctionsPopulationState (computer science)LawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mandatory United Nation (UN) sanctions imposed against Iraq, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Haiti in the 1990s gave rise to strong criticisms because of their comprehensive nature and the harm inflicted on innocent civilians. Chastened, the international community, led by like-minded, mainly western states, reformed the instrument of sanctions and adopted ‘targeted sanctions’—measures designed to address the peace spoilers but limit damage to the population at large.1 The consequence has been the evolution of sanctions from blunt, comprehensive measures targeting the economies of entire states to more specific measures targeting individuals, non-state entities, particular regions and specific sectors of economies. Despite this profound change, sanctions are still mistakenly assumed to target whole countries. Failing to recognize these qualitative differences between comprehensive and targeted sanctions has prevented the debate on sanctions from evolving. Acknowledging the centrality and the novel characteristics of contemporary sanctions, the Targeted Sanctions Consortium (TSC) has collected evidence from all cases of UN targeted sanctions since the end of the Cold War. The intent is to provide an empirical basis for bridging the gap between practice and theory on the centrality of sanctions as instruments of governance in the hands of the UN Security Council. Led by Thomas Biersteker and Sue Eckert and involving over 60 international scholars and practitioners, the database includes all 23 cases of targeted sanctions imposed by the United Nations since 1991. The cases have been sub-divided into episodes representing the different objectives and sanctions measures that were imposed over the duration of a sanctions case. Thus the database is composed of 63 episodes of targeted sanctions. Each episode was coded using 296 variables in order to allow cross-case analyses and thorough within-case comparisons. The variables represent 15 different categories that describe each episode in great detail. Data feature, among other factors, the presence of other foreign policy instruments, concurrent sanctions by other actors, the drafters of the UN Security Council sanctions resolutions, the range of objectives pursued by the sanctions, evasion techniques, unintended consequences observed and, ultimately, an evaluation of the sanctions' effectiveness.2

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.192 · 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