MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023720189 · doi:10.1080/16544951.2020.1756562

Dilemmas regarding returning ISIS fighters

2020· article· en· W3023720189 on OpenAlex
Trudy Govier, David Boutland

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

VenueEthics & Global Politics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceCriminologyLawSociologyEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forces of ISIS (the so-called Islamic State) have lost most of the territory they held in Syria and Iraq, and the anti-ISIS forces are inclined to declare victory. On the presumption that we are in a context of aftermath to this struggle, that aftermath will itself be characterized by serious difficulties. A crucial problem in this context is that of returning foreign fighters. It is estimated that some 5600 persons left western countries to join the ISIS forces. Many of these men and women have been killed or imprisoned. Some will remain abroad to continue violent activities in alliance with ISIS or other jihadist forces. And some will seek to return home to the country they left. Regarding these people, referred to here as returnees, important issues of ethics and policy arise. These issues are likely to be disturbing and polarizing, with the result that some governments hold back from discussing them. Thinking that dodging the issues is a mistake, we explore some of them here, first setting the context in which they arise and then describing the central ethical dilemmas, which the tension between efforts to protect public safety and concern for the rights of suspected persons.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.283 · 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