MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367557663 · doi:10.33642/ijbass.v9n4p4

NATO's Engagement in Afghanistan: Assessment and Implications

2023· article· en· W4367557663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Mawlana

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business and Applied Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorth Atlantic TreatyAlliancePolitical scienceEuropean unionPeacekeepingTreatyPoliticsSafeguardingTerrorismPolitical economyPublic administrationInternational tradeLawSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NATO was established in 1949 when the USA, Canada, and ten European states signed the North Atlantic Treaty. The treaty emphasized protecting the security of NATO members, primarily Western European countries, from threats posed by the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO adopted a strategy of expansion, believing that increasing its membership would improve its effectiveness in safeguarding European security. NATO also recognized the significance of non-traditional threats such as instability, and terrorism outside its borders, which could potentially threaten the security of its members. As a result, NATO expanded its security concept to encompass political, economic, social, and environmental factors. Consequently, NATO began to address these new threats emerging outside the European continent, such as illegal immigration, counter-terrorism, and peacekeeping operations. NATO's involvement in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014 marked the Alliance's first deployment outside Europe and its longest war to date. The mission ended with NATO's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 after failing to achieve its objective of building a Western-style democratic state. However, NATO maintained a training and advisory mission until withdrawing it in 2021. My study aims to analyse the factors that led to NATO's failure in its mission in Afghanistan and its impact on the Alliance's willingness to undertake new missions outside Europe.

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)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business and Applied Social ScienceSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207