MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953247240 · doi:10.1080/15027570.2019.1625508

An Exploratory Study of the Decision to Refrain from Killing in the Accounts of Military and Police Personnel

2019· article· en· W2953247240 on OpenAlex
Katherine Baggaley, Olga Marques, Phillip Shon

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 Military Ethics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituational ethicsHumanityExploratory researchCriminologyEthical decisionMilitary personnelPolitical sciencePsychologyLawPublic relationsSocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although previous studies have examined killing as an outcome-oriented measure, few have explored non-killing as a socially organized process. Using letters written by soldiers, police officers, and security professionals found in the magazine Soldier of Fortune, this study examines cases in which they refrain from killing their opponents. Our results indicate that refrained killings by these actors are socially organized in ways that are shaped by situational, environmental, technological, administrative, and moral factors. In addition, it was found that when police officers and soldiers realized the humanity of their opponents, they employed alternative methods to subdue or control without using lethal force, despite situational and legal justifications for doing so. Implications for the sociology, psychology, and ethics of killing – or not killing – are discussed.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.298 · 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