Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the end of the Cold War, security approach has shifted from state (traditional) to human (nontraditional) security. Unlike traditional security approach which focuses only on threats to states, concern of nontraditional security approach broadens to every aspect of human lives such as economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political. However, as a new approach in security studies, human security seems incompatible to implement in a region which has long embraced traditional security doctrine. While regulated in the Western countries such as Canada and Norway, human security didn’t see serious barriers; but in the Eastern countries, primarily in Southeast Asia, human security is challenged not only by state security, but also comprehensive security and cooperative security which has been existed in the region. Three primary ASEAN states such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore tend to strengthen their national security doctrines rather than to implement human security. Furthermore, ASEAN Security Community as one of ASEAN Community pillars ignores human security.It means thathuman security is hard to implement in this region because its fundamental elements are clash with doctrine of comprehensive and cooperative security. Therefore, human security has to consider its ability to implement without leaving comprehensive and cooperative security values. \n \nKeywords: human security, comprehensive security, cooperative security, national security, Southeast Asia. \n \n \nTema: Harmony in Diversity: Building ASEAN Community 2015 \nSub-Tema: International Relations and Security
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".