MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385456177 · doi:10.1080/23792949.2023.2237558

Midnight’s victims

2023· article· en· W4385456177 on OpenAlexaff
Derek Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueArea Development and Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMidnightHistoryAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last US drone strike during its occupation of Afghanistan took place in Kabul on 29 August 2021. The target was identified as an Islamic State–Khorosan (ISIS-K) cell preparing to attack Hamid Karzai International Airport while the United States and its allies conducted a large-scale non-combatant evacuation and the Taliban advanced into the capital. Although the strike was the culmination of intensive aerial surveillance, it killed only innocent civilians. In comparing the official account of events provided by the Pentagon to explain the catastrophic mistake with an alternative narrative established by investigative reporters, it becomes clear that the strike was prompted by a performative series of assumptions and inferences that fastened on every observed action as suspicious and ultimately hostile. A further comparison with a US airstrike in Uruzgan on 21 February 2010 shows that this chain of misinterpretation and miscalculation has been a constant in civilian casualty incidents for many years. This prompts a series of reflections on the architecture of aerial violence and its implications for civilians caught up in the battlespaces of later modern war.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.013

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArea Development and PolicySame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207