MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2489753862 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316459812.009

Sticks and Carrots: Sanctions and Food Aid

2016· book-chapter· en· W2489753862 on OpenAlexaff
Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctionsPolitical scienceIntervention (counseling)Use of forceHuman rightsHumanitarian interventionLawLaw and economicsInternational lawPolitical economyPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

States frequently try to persuade or coerce each other to change their behavior toward their citizens or accept outside intervention for humanitarian reasons. States’ actions can include positive measures such as diplomatic engagement and foreign aid, or negative measures such as moral condemnation, sanctions, and – in the last instance – military force. Since 2000 an international consensus has been evolving that states are obliged to protect citizens of other states when they suffer extreme violations of their human rights. In 2001 the Canadian government sponsored the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. This Commission concluded that there were sometimes just causes for military intervention against a sovereign state, and advocated a responsibility to protect, colloquially known as R2P. The threshold for such intervention was “serious and irreparable harm,” defined as large-scale loss of life or large-scale ethnic cleansing, whether or not with genocidal intent, as the product of deliberate state action, state neglect, or state failure. Like the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, however, the Commission's report did not identify state-induced famine as a specific crime (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001, xii). In 2005 a report by Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, discussed whether states had the right, or even the obligation, to use force “to rescue the citizens of other States from genocide or comparable crimes” (Annan 2005, par. 122, p. 33). In 2006 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted a resolution on R2P, but most of its clauses referred to the responsibility of a state to protect its own people. Only clause 26 referred to the UN's own responsibility, noting that “the deliberate targeting of civilians and other protected persons, and the commission of systematic, flagrant and widespread violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in situations of armed conflict, may constitute a threat to international peace and security,” and reaffirming the readiness of the UNSC “to consider such situations and, where necessary, to adopt appropriate steps” (United Nations Security Council 2006, April 28). Actual armed intervention was still, however, a last step, not to be taken lightly. Moreover, the UNSC Resolution referred only to situations of armed conflict, not to criminal behavior by states.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations→French-language works237,207→