MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265776267

Secrecy and Good Governance

2011· article· en· W2265776267 on OpenAlexaffabout
Craig Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecrecySanctionsForeign policyPolitical scienceTransparency (behavior)LawPropositionGlobal governanceDiplomacyCorporate governanceTortureInternational relationsPublic administrationHuman rightsPoliticsManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Co-author Scott debates Daniel Fata (Vice-President of the Cohen Group in Washington, DC; US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy from 2005 to 2008) in the Nez-a-Nez section of the quarterly world affairs magazine, Global Brief. The proposition put to Scott and Fata by Global Brief was: ‘Secrecy is a necessary condition for good governance’. Scott argued against and Fata argued for the proposition. In the result, both conceded aspects of the other’s position, while maintaining distinctly different views about where – and, notably, when – to draw the line between secrecy and transparency. The debate addresses good governance generally but focuses more particularly on governance as it relates to foreign policy decision making and diplomatic statecraft, against the backdrop of the rise of Wikileaks and with special reference to Wikileaks’ release of US Embassy cables. Specific contexts raised as examples include the Iran-Contra affair, the US and UK roles in the Iraq invasion and its aftermath, the coup d’etat in Honduras, sanctions against Zimbabwe, war crimes in Sri Lanka, transfer of detainees to torture by Canada, and nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel and Iran. The present SSRN version appears on the Global Brief website, while a substantially identical version appears, differently formatted and with final edits, in the print edition.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207