MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human safety concept genesis

2020· article· en· W3158914947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damir Faritovich Ziatdinov

Bibliographic record

VenueМировая политика · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferentSubject (documents)LegitimacyEngineering ethicsInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologySociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human safety concept has become an integral part of international relations against the background of the security agenda extension. The research goal of this article is the definition of the main stages of human safety concept formation. The research subject is the human safety concept. The article contains the review of the evolution of the human safety concept and the definitions of human safety. The author considers the implementation of the human safety concept in official documents of national and international level. The research is based on general scientific methods: historical and comparative analysis, the systems approach and the critical method, as well as formal analysis of legal and statutory documents. The modern human safety discourse outlines the following problems: the definitions of a safety referent, the personal safety theory, the basic stages of the concept formation, the experience of countries and international organizations (Canada, Japan, Thailand, etc.). A universally recognized definition of personal safety hasn’t been formulated yet, despite the fact that the UNO promoted the development of a universal understanding of human safety. That led to its loose interpretation and begot the problem of legitimacy of external interference and hampered practical activity in this field. The author concludes that the human safety concept should be comprehensively analyzed, particularly with regard to its development, the structure of human safety, differentiation of human safety from and interaction with other types of safety. The author also finds out that the problem of defining the limits of the human safety concept still exists due to the absence of a unified interpretation. The formation of the concept itself is ongoing. The scientific novelty of the research consists in a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the human safety concept in international relations which reflects the main stages of formation of this concept and its directions, and in an attempt to define human safety.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.028
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueМировая политикаSame topicLegal and Policy IssuesFrench-language works237,207