Was R2P a viable option for Syria? Opinion content in the <i>Globe and Mail</i> and the <i>National Post,</i> 2011–2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the spring of 2011 the Syrian civil war emerged as a late chapter of the “Arab Spring,” a chapter that in retrospect has turned out to be the most complex and potentially most serious. How such crisis events are framed in press coverage has been identified as important with respect to possible responses the international community makes under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). By most indicators (number of casualties, number of refugees, plus the use of chemical weapons against civilians), Syria certainly qualified as a candidate for the application of a UN Security Council authorized R2P reaction response; yet during the first two-and-a-half years of the war no such action was forthcoming. This research examines editorial and opinion pieces on Syria appearing in two leading Canadian newspapers, the Globe and Mail and the National Post, from March 2011 to September 2013 in terms of assessing how the civil war was framed regarding the appropriateness of an R2P military response on the part of the international community. The research has both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. The former examines whether framing promoted or discouraged international involvement (i.e. a “will to intervene”), as well as whether diplomatic and especially military actions such as a “no-fly zone” or more direct military attacks would be likely to result in success or failure . Qualitatively, the major positions taken and arguments presented regarding R2P, and whether it should be invoked for Syria, are reviewed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".