Keamanan Manusia dalam Perspektif Studi Keamanan Kritis Terkait Perang Intra-Negara
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tulisan ini didasari dari persoalan keamanan manusia yang dikaji melalui pendekatan studi keamanan kritis sebagai sebuah kritik ontologis dan epistemologis mengenai negara sebagai obyek referen keamanan. Kritik tersebut bermuara dari pengembangan lebih luas dari pendekatan studi keamanan Copenhagen School yang dipelopori oleh Buzan, Weaver dan de Wilde (1998) melalui analisis sektor keamanan dan konsep sekuritisasi. Kedua hal inilah yang kemudian ditanggapi oleh kelompok pendekatan Studi Keamanan Kritis dalam Aberystwyth/Wales School dan Toronto School yang mengajukan tiga klaim pertanyaan ontologis seputar konsep keamanan yang sebenarnya dan nyata. Ketiga klaim tersebut mencakup: what is real (of security)?, what is knowledge (of security)?, what (security) is to be done?. Melalui relevansinya dalam konflik/perang intra-state, maka klaim akan konsep keamanan menemukan momentumnya bahwa ancaman keamanan dalam konflik/perang intra-state, bisa muncul terhadap segala aspek kehidupan manusia dan kemudian melahirkan ancaman keamanan yang sebenarnya dan nyata terhadap keamanan kehidupan manusia seutuhnya.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it