MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215563334 · doi:10.21810/jicw.v4i2.3755

Concept of Soft Violence in Critical Security Studies

2021· article· en· W3215563334 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Candyce Kelshall, Natalie Archutowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and Warfare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association for Health Services and Policy ResearchCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealmSoft powerPower (physics)Computer securityPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On September 16, 2021, Professor Candyce Kelshall and Ms. Natalie Archutowski presented on the Concept of Soft Violence in Critical Security Studies at the 2021 CASIS Vancouver Defence and Security Advisory Network online forum. Primary topics included: evaluating violence as soft in nature, how and where soft violence might fit in the realm of critical security studies, violent transnational social movements (VTSMs), sharp power, and soft power.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.118
Scholarly communication0.0150.020
Open science0.0020.021
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and WarfareSame topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207