MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791174725 · doi:10.1080/17502977.2018.1426383

Adapting Security Sector Reform to Ground-Level Realities: The Transition to a Second-Generation Model

2018· article· en· W2791174725 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intervention and Statebuilding · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsInternational Council for Canadian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecurity sector reformBlueprintTechnocracyState (computer science)Political sciencePoliticsProcess (computing)Political economyPublic administrationEconomic systemSociologyEconomicsLawEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The security sector reform (SSR) model has entered a period of uncertainty and change. Despite being mainstreamed in international development and security policy, SSR has had a meagre record of achievement. SSR analysts, practitioners and policymakers are increasingly speaking of the need to move to a second-generation SSR model. There is a growing belief that SSR in its current form is too utopian, technocratic, state-centric, and donor-driven to succeed. While there is no universally accepted blueprint for second-generation SSR, a number of characteristics have emerged that have begun to define the contours of this alternative vision: less overtly liberal; willing to engage non-state actors, norms and structures; more modest in is objectives and time frames; attuned to the political nature of the process; and bottom-up in its orientation.

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 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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.279 · 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