Bibliographic record
Abstract
An examination of the dialogue concerning Stabilisation illuminates a paradigm based on the ideas of the so-called ‘liberal peace’ – defined minimally as democracy and free markets. This model proposes that if the liberal peace is delivered at the sub-national level via Stabilisation interventions, then the desired outcome would be ‘stability’. However, commentators of Stabilisation generally agree that the liberal peace is an unachievable objective that inhibits the desired outcome of ‘stability’. This Practice Note contests this analysis and instead argues that ‘stability’ is an unachievable objective that inhibits the desired outcome of a liberal democratic functioning state. Therefore, Stabilisation’s desired outcome becomes the protection and enjoyment of human rights, rather than ‘stability’. This practice note continues its examination of Stabilisation and comes to the conclusion that Stabilisaton can be understood as political actions in support of an ideological outcome. This understanding of Stabilisation is compatible with existing international engagements in support of national transition processes and can be applied across the spectrum from consent to coercion.
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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".