MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900322310 · doi:10.29173/psur65

The United Nations: Implications of Soft Power

2016· article· en· W2900322310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecurity councilVetoPolitical scienceLeagueChinaSoft powerPeacekeepingSovereigntyState (computer science)Intervention (counseling)International securityHuman rightsInternational ActionDevelopment economicsResponsibility to protectPower (physics)Economic growthPublic administrationLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations is often looked to for guidance in conflict prevention and intervention, but its lack of hard power has proven to be extremely limiting. Although the United Nations has been a major improvement from the League of Nations, its ability to maintain world peace is restricted by the aspirations of its member states. The Security Council is especially significant, made up of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia. Each state in the Security Council has the ability to veto any initiative proposed by the United Nations. Additionally, the United Nations cannot take action without leadership from one or more of its states, and many states are hesitant to sacrifice their military resources even in the event of major human rights violations. This hesitancy to intervene is especially evident in the case study of the Rwandan genocide, but can also be seen in the Cold War and the Syrian Civil War, amongst other conflicts.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 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 venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207