The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Part 1: Questions of Doctrine The case of East Timor: Ancient history or the shape of things to come?Jim Della-Giacoma (New York University) Action adapted to circumstance: Peacekeeping doctrine and the use of force Mark Malan (Centre for Defence & Security Studies, New Zealand Defence Force, Massey University) Between absolute war and absolute peacekeeping Carlos Chagas Vianna Braga (Brazilian War College) Implications of stabilisation mandates for the use of force in UN peace operations Cedric de Coning (NUPI and ACCORD) Understanding the utility of the UN military component to protect civilians in different scenarios Stian Kjeksrud (Norwegian Defence Research Establishment and the University of Oslo) & Alexander Beadle (Norwegian Defence Research Establishment) Protecting civilians with force: Lessons and dilemmas from the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti Walter Dorn (Canadian Forces College & Royal Military College of Canada) The 'All necessary means', to what ends? The unintended consequences of the use of force by UN Peacekeepers Charles Hunt (University of Queensland) The logic of force in UN peacekeeping: A policy primer Peter Nadin Part 2: Questions of Practice Leadership in UN Missions Tim Ford The use of force and the civil-military dimension David Curran (Coventry University) Generating the ability: The challenges of force generation Darryl Watters (Independent) UN peacekeeping and international law James Sloan (University of Glasgow) Conclusion
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".