Human Security: An Analysis of the Dissemination of an Idea in World Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study considers the dissemination of the idea of human security including the means – trajectories and spaces – by which it has been spread and reproduced in international politics. My aim is to illuminate the agents behind this dissemination, the ways that the concept has been shared and the intellectual and institutional frameworks that have enabled its existence. I conclude that the idea of human security arose from the UN system, particularly the United Nations Development Programme’s offices. It was disseminated with the assistance of “human security friends,” i.e. Japan, Canada and Norway and several prominent scholars, high-ranking policy-makers and UN officers. Nevertheless, despite these efforts, human security has not found a following worldwide. It was embedded in part of the UN system where it has remained powerful and been reproduced. Outside the UN system, however, even its most active and devoted promoters have abandoned the concept. The number of these supporters has dwindled, the idea has lost its power and the spaces where it is reproduced are limited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".