MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041453461 · doi:10.18192/potentia.v5i0.4409

Contradictions of Counter-Insurgency and Peacebuilding

2014· article· en· W3041453461 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nathalie Labonté

Bibliographic record

VenuePotentia Journal of International Affairs · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacebuildingInsurgencyPolitical scienceIntervention (counseling)Government (linguistics)Public administrationLawPsychologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian intervention in Kandahar from 2005 to 2011 has mainly been based on the concept of stabilization. This is particularly true from 2009 to 2011. Stabilization had some successes in Kandahar. It also had important challenges. Contradictions remain to ensure best implementation on the ground. This article is based on firsthand experience in the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT) and the Dand District Forward Operating Base (FOB). Using Kandahar as a case example, the author aims to provide policy recommendations to the Canadian Government to increase the effectiveness of future stabilization operations.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePotentia Journal of International AffairsSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207