MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463037039 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n3p156

Human Security Assessment in Kenya—The Case of Isiolo, Lakipia, Nandi and Elgeyo Marakwet Counties (Note 1)

2016· article· en· W2463037039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asfaw Kumssa, Tabitha Kiriti-Ng�ang�a

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman securityVulnerability (computing)DisadvantagedPovertyHuman development (humanity)Environmental securityVulnerability assessmentIntervention (counseling)Sustainable developmentEmpowermentEnvironmental planningEconomic growthEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsGeographySociologyComputer securitySocial sciencePsychologyEconomicsPsychological interventionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>While human security concerns are critical in sub-Saharan Africa, initiatives to incorporate a human security orientation in development policies and planning are still rare. A human security approach to development requires the identification and integration of the needs of the vulnerable groups into development strategies of a country. A human security assessment is an effective tool for identifying threats to sustainable development and the factors that cause vulnerability of communities due to their geographic, demographic, and socio-cultural differences, and variations in the nature of institutions for development in their communities. This study presents the findings of a human security assessment conducted in four counties (Isiolo, Laikipia, Elgeyo Marakwet and Nandi) of Kenya. The assessment focuses on human security concerns arising from poverty, environmental degradation, political and human conflicts, health related problems, among others. Following an assessment and analysis of the human security threats in each of these counties, the study proposes intervention strategies that would reduce vulnerability and enhance human security among marginalized and disadvantaged groups in the target counties.</p>

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207