MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561803042 · doi:10.1080/14775700.2016.1267902

Disrupting 21st-Century In/Security

2016· article· en· W2561803042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benita Heiskanen, Samira Saramo

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative American Studies An International Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thematic issue probes into twenty-first-century security concerns in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and their transnational implications. In particular, it explores three tensions that characterise contemporary security concerns: national security vs. human security, policy measures vs. grassroots activism and scholarly discourses vs. artistic interventions. The 'War on Terror' launched by President George W. Bush marked the beginning of the century with issues of violence and insecurity, with major human rights ramifications. Grassroots activists, however, have resisted the imposition of security policy and stood up to the insecurities they face. This thematic journal issue discusses questions of in/security around a robust people-centred framework that delineates questions of insecurity as a complex nexus that intertwines policy-making, everyday experiences, cultural representations and formal and informal communication networks. This focus presents an alternative to more conventional approaches that examine issues of societal in/security solely from the viewpoint of nation states and law enforcement. The collection’s case studies address the ways in which ordinary people in a transnational North American context experience questions of insecurity. The articles highlight the central position of gender, race, class and sexuality in both strengthening and challenging danger, uncertainty and liminality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueComparative American Studies An International JournalSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207