MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115918106 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v14n2p56

An Analysis of Common Security and Defence Policy’s (CSDP) Strategic Communication (StratCom)

2020· article· en· W3115918106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kieran Doyle, Tedla Desta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrategic communicationPublic relationsPublic diplomacyPoliticsSocial mediaPublic administrationDiplomacyPolitical scienceService (business)SociologyBusinessLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategic communication (StratCom) is established as one of the key functions and interests of contemporary organisations and governments. The usefulness and importance of strategic communication becomes even more essential when the organisation is defence and security-focused or involved in crisis management. The objective of this study was to assess the strategic communication practices, and inherent challenges of communicating Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and present relevant reflections. A documentary analysis of the relevant EU websites and social media pages of 16 CSDP missions and operations was conducted. This was supplemented with eight key-informant interviews with Press and Public Information Officers (PPIOs) of CSDP and EU strategists. The research demonstrated that most CSDP missions and operations are present on most social media platforms but they often garner very small number of likes, comments, shares, replies or interactions from their targeted audiences. Features of an echo-chamber are also observed. The study also found that public affairs (information) and public diplomacy were the two main forms of strategic communication that the CSDP utilises. CSDP’s strategic communication also tends to take a one-way StratCom process. The challenges faced in terms of StratCom by CSDP are not uniform; they are contextual ranging from resource, translation to mismatch of expectations. The major challenge, however, emanates from the structural problems of CSDP or the EU itself that are beyond the European External Action Service (EEAS) or the relevant Press and Public Information Offices (PPIOs). The study recommendations include quicker EU level political and policy compromise on CSDP, training and resource improvements for StratCom, ‘storytelling and use of real people’, highlighting gender, rights and local ownership, increasing the link with the international media and regular and appropriate self-appraisals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207