MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905511457 · doi:10.7282/t3988bd6

Child soldiers and military actors

2018· article· en· W2905511457 on OpenAlex
Iuliia Hoban

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueRutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Political scienceLiberal democracyCriminologyPolitical economyDemocracyLawSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The professional militaries of Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom have increasingly recognized that children can become part of opposing forces and face the operational and policy decisions regarding their detention. These Anglo-Saxon, consolidated, liberal democracies demonstrate a high level of similarity, in terms of their shared norms and values, and common security practices. Nonetheless, these three countries have developed distinct policies on the detention of child soldiers. This dissertation addressed the question: what explains the cross-national variation in the development of policies on the detention of child soldiers in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States?In order to answer this research question, I proposed a series of hypotheses to examine the role of three strategic actors in the policy process: military lawyers, government officials, and representatives from non-governmental organizations. I analyzed data that required both quantitative and qualitative methods to test these hypotheses. Specifically, qualitatively, I performed a content analysis of a total of 69 semi-structured interviews; and, quantitatively, I used NVivo 11 coding query tools to generate numerical data to present aggregate results. These methods allowed for comparing the roles of these three actors in each national context. I utilized the comparative case study method to identify causal patterns across these three countries to offer a second test of these hypotheses. My dissertation suggested an explanatory relationship between NGOs’ choice of strategies and the policy outcomes in each of these three countries. First, the NGOs’ choice between different types of framing and how to engage in framing contests, during the agenda-setting stage, had far-reaching implications for the policy-making process. It defined the key terms and demarcated boundaries of the issue in a policy domain that abounds with contested elements. Second, the selection of strategies and decision-making venues simultaneously influenced the NGOs’ ability to shape policy outcomes during the policy formulation stage. Third, the application of the strategy of ‘naming and shaming’ during the policy implementation stage remained effective only if the NGOs applied it in combination with other policy instruments, such as the use of domestic litigation. This dissertation hopes to make an empirical contribution to the debate on how policy actors engage and shape outcomes in contested policy domains, which require balancing national security and human rights agendas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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