MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210428960 · doi:10.21810/jicw.v4i3.3802

Operationalising Human Security in the Contemporary Operating Environment

2022· article· en· W4210428960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Anning, Toby Fenton, Julia Muraszkiewicz, Hayley Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and Warfare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman securityCritical security studiesAnalyticsSecurity studiesPolitical scienceBusiness intelligenceSociologyEngineering ethicsPublic relationsComputer securityInformation securityEngineeringPublic administrationData scienceSecurity serviceKnowledge managementComputer scienceLawNetwork security policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing upon primary research funded by the UK Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), this article is about using data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) for operationalising human security in the contemporary operating environment. The idea of human security has gained much traction in the international community since its introduction in a 1994 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report and has more recently become a military concern. Yet, the core tenets of this idea remain contested, and the military role in support of human security remains an open question. Nonetheless, the concurrent increase in Open Data and AI does give rise to new opportunities to understand the various human security concerns. In response, DASA funded Projects SOLEBAY and HAMOC to research these concerns and the possibilities of data analytics for human security. Drawing on the research findings, we propose the idea of Population Intelligence (POPINT) as a new intelligence discipline to operationalise human security.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and WarfareSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207