MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801926400 · doi:10.19088/1968-2018.112

Inclusive Peace and Security

2018· article· en· W2801926400 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUniversity of OxfordWorld Health Organization
KeywordsDisarmamentContext (archaeology)Political scienceHuman securityMilitarizationLivelihoodSociologyNational securitySecurity studiesAgency (philosophy)LawPublic relationsSocial sciencePoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This IDS Bulletin Archive Collection reviews four decades of analysis and research on peace, security, and development, drawing on articles published in previous issues of the Bulletin throughout this timeframe. IDS first began to investigate the relationship between disarmament and development in the 1970s. Then, research focused initially on disarmament and its actual and potential contributions to development. Disarmament, along with reductions in military spending, it was argued, would release resources for development. It would also break the cycles of militarisation which propelled violent conflicts in many parts of the developing world. After the end of the Cold War, development research engaged more and more directly with conflict prevention and peace-building. The focus then turned towards security in a global context, in which donor agencies involved themselves directly with security questions. As shown by the articles in this edition, work at IDS has been distinctive in three respects: first, in interrogating the multiple meanings and forms of security – international, national, military, personal, livelihood, food, environmental, etc. – and how these interconnect, or indeed clash; second, in tracing the complex links between global, national, local, and personal security; and third, in its insistence that security be inclusive, drawing upon the experience and agency of the people and groups who are ‘developed’ and ‘secured’. The pieces reprinted in this Archive Collection help analyse shifts in focus over the four decades, before highlighting that it may be time to revisit disarmament, as a tangible policy goal, in these present times of chronic insecurity and increasing violence.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.327 · 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