Insecurities of Non-Dominance: Re-Theorizing Human Security and Environmental Change in Developed States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary human security theory often characterizes people as secure or insecure based largely upon the ‘security’ of their respective states. Although some research explicitly notes that human insecurity can arise in developed and developing states, seldom does it pay the former more than cursory attention; repeatedly, the unspoken assumption is that citizens of developed states don’t actually experience, or experience very little, human insecurity (see, for example, Thomas and Wilkin, 1999; ICISS, 2001; Hampson et al., 2002; CHS, 2003; Roberts, 2008).1 Such an approach, however, assumes generally uniform security conditions within a given state, and depends upon gendered characterizations of ‘secure’ states in the Global North exporting or promoting human security to ‘insecure’ states in the Global South. Consequently, it obscures conditions of insecurity experienced by minority or marginalized groups within otherwise ‘secure’ states and societies. As a result, human insecurity within developed states remains under-theorized and under-examined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".