Bibliographic record
Abstract
Now it is time for us to rise to our newest and biggest challenge: to fight the first great war of interdependence, the struggle for climate security. 1 And I think that, from this day forward, the words ‘climate change’ and ‘international security’ will be forever linked. 2 Abrupt and dangerous climate change is now a significant concern for many people, and the recent and very rapid reconfiguration of some mainstream scientific, environmental, regulatory and security discourses by claims of increasing climatic instability deserves close attention. Perhaps not surprisingly, the notion of an insecure or unstable climate system is itself a shifting and ambiguous construct, one assembled from diverse cultural and scientific elements, and invested with multiple meanings depending on the context and purposes for which it is invoked. These elements are sometimes of ancient origins, and marked by different histories and debates, as suggested by Mike Hulme, Simon Dalby, Jon Barnett, Max Boykoff, Paul Edwards and others. 3 Nothing is gained in over-simplifying this point. Yet, the current discourse on climatic instability is quite new in many respects, at least in the form that underpins the surge of interest in ‘climate security’ shown by Western intelligence, security and military planning agencies. It is the relationship between recent efforts to reconfigure popular notions of climate change — as abrupt, as tipping point laden, as dangerous, as a security issue — and the national security interests of the US and UK governments that are explored here. 4 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".