MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738199039 · doi:10.22215/cria.v3i0.121

Finer’s Conditions of Military Intervention: The Case of the 1999 Coup in Pakistan

2016· article· en· W2738199039 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Imaan Sandhu

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton Review of International Affairs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfessionalizationIntervention (counseling)SovereigntyOfficerContext (archaeology)Political scienceState (computer science)PoliticsCorporate governanceNationalismPolitical economyDevelopment economicsLawPublic administrationSociologyManagementPsychologyGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assesses the validity of S.E. Finer’s “five conditions of military intervention in politics” in the context of the 1999 military coup in Pakistan. According to Finer, the professionalization of the officer corps, the rise of nationalism and the nation-state, popular sovereignty, the emergence of an “insurrectionary army” and the creation of “new, independent states” contribute to a military’s decision to supplant the civilian authority and intervene in the governance of a country. The findings of this paper confirm that while not all of Finer’s conditions are necessarily fully applicable to Pakistan, his overall framework nonetheless accounts for the major drivers of the 1999 coup.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton Review of International AffairsSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207