MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170364941 · doi:10.11610/isij.4805

Multinational Cooperation and Intervention: Small Steps to Better Results

2021· article· en· W3170364941 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy H. Parsons, James J. Nolan, Frank Crispino

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation & Security An International Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionPolitical scienceInternational communityHumanitarian interventionPeacekeepingAl qaedaDevelopment economicsTerrorismPsychologyPublic administrationLawInternational lawPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the latter years of the twentieth century and early years of the twenty-first century, there have been a number of high-profile multinational interven­tions by the international community in countries deemed to be sufficiently un­stable to present a threat to global peace or, more controversially, to local pop­ulations. Beginning with the tardy but largely successful intervention in the Yu­goslav civil war in 1990 and culminating in the soon to conclude intervention in Afghanistan after the Al Qaeda attacks on the USA in 2001, there have also been military interventions in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. The list is not exhaustive. There have been other interventions elsewhere, but these particular examples of military intervention mainly conducted by western powers provide illuminat­ing insights into the success and, sometimes, the failure of such multinational security responses to perceived international threats.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation & Security An International JournalSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207