Theoretical Issues of "Security" Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of ideas about the category of "security" has come a long way, correlated with the development of human civilization. Initially conceived as a biological reaction, aimed at one’s own life preservation from the all-encompassing world danger for the ancient man, security moves from the category of biological reaction to the category of the thinking process with the development of mental activity, reflecting not only the response to the preservation of life, but also the anticipation of threat appearance danger. According to the authors, the qualitative transition of security comprehension from everyday life and practicality to the scientific aspect takes place at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries due to the rapid development of science and technology during this period of time. The scientific interest in the formal-logical interpretation of security understanding and the desire to develop appropriate terminology that adequately reflects the essence of security is especially evident in the philosophy by F. Bacon and B. Spinoza. However, neither during this period, nor during subsequent periods, the science has developed an established (academic) concept of security. The existing numerous concepts of security are nothing more than empirical in nature and reflect not the essence of security phenomenon, but the person’s subjective perceptions of it.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".