MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041500672 · doi:10.18192/potentia.v6i0.4415

NATO Crisis Response

2015· article· en· W3041500672 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James DeTemple

Bibliographic record

VenuePotentia Journal of International Affairs · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingNorth Atlantic TreatyPolitical scienceCrisis managementPoliticsState (computer science)TreatyPolitical economyCollective securityEuropean unionPublic administrationLawInternational relationsInternational tradeSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ethno-territorial conflicts precipitated by the breakup of the Soviet Union and dissolution of Yugoslavia had major implications for European security and substantially altered the strategic priorities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the post-Cold War period. In order to preserve regional stability, NATO expanded beyond collective defense into crisis management and peacekeeping to address destabilizing ethnic conflicts, particularly in the Balkans region. This paper proposes that the NATO peacekeeping operation succeeded as a whole in stabilizing the Kosovo crisis and enabled the creation of a functioning, multiethnic state in Kosovo, which became independent in 2008. Using Kosovo as a case study, this paper outlines a conceptual framework for use in examining the success of the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo, known as KFOR, in stabilizing the Kosovo crisis and enhancing regional stability. This framework consists of five core security tasks – diffusing the crisis; ensuring security; enabling humanitarian relief operations; facilitating a political solution; and fostering long-term regional stability – organized around an end state of establishing a stable, independent Kosovo. The paper concludes with comments on the usefulness of KFOR as a model for peacekeeping and the long-term use of NATO forces in such peacekeeping operations going forward.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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