MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387021460 · doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13264

Two meetings

2023· article· en· W4387021460 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Janzwood

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYEnthusiasmExistentialismPleasurePoliticsPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesPsychologyLawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I had the pleasure of encountering Nathan Sears on two separate occasions—in the first week of his PhD and on the final day of his life. The first time we met, Nathan's ideas about why Great Powers fail to effectively address existential risks were just starting to take shape. The second time we met, Nathan, now a newly minted PhD, presented his fully formed theory of macrosecuritisation failure at the International Studies Association conference in Montréal. I met Nathan in the fall of 2016 at a political science department potluck to kick off the semester at the University of Toronto where he and my partner were both doing their PhDs. Entering a room full of international relations PhD students, I was dreading yet another debate about neorealism and constructivism over a plate of vegan hors d'oeuvres. Thankfully, Nathan had been tipped off that I, like him, shared an interest in global catastrophic and existential risk (and the unique governance challenges they present for humanity) and so we hit it off right away. I remember being enthralled by Nathan's energy and enthusiasm—and intimidated by the clarity of his research program just 1 week into the semester. Nathan was perplexed by our inability to make meaningful progress on mitigating threats like climate change, pandemics and technological risks. While I was fixated on the challenge of decision making under deep uncertainty—and the interactions between scientists and policymakers, Nathan was focused on the role of the State, especially the Great Powers. Even though it had become quite trendy in 2017 for IR scholars to focus their attention on sub-state and non-state actors, Nathan was sure there could be no effective existential risk governance without Great Power leadership—and no Great Power leadership without Great Power rivalry. Flash forward 6 years, and Dr. Nathan Sears—now with a PhD defence and a few top-tier journal publications under his belt—is presenting his fully formed theory of macrosecuritisation failure to a mostly full room of his peers (not bad for the 8:15 am timeslot!). Compared to the first time I'd met him, several things had not changed one bit. Despite declaring this was the first presentation he'd ever done without having a cup of coffee beforehand, Nathan was as energetic and enthusiastic about existential risk governance and the role of the Great Powers as the first day I'd met him. However, while the version of Nathan that I first met had more ideas than he knew what to do with, Dr. Sears was calm, cool and systematic in his thinking. He knew his ideas were important—and was intent on communicating them clearly and effectively. It's hard not to imagine the scholar—and the person—that Nathan was still in the process of becoming. It's hard to look at his too-brief 35 years of life and his too-few years of scholarship and not dwell on the feeling that he had so much more to do and give—so many more important and impactful ideas to unearth and share. But Nathan was also a scientist. And while science is slow and stubbornly iterative in a time of urgent and converging global challenges, the ripples of Nathan's ideas will continue to influence other scholars in the fields of international relations, global governance and risk analysis for years to come. To me, Nathan's most powerful idea is that, to date, fear of the Other has outweighed the fear of an existential threat. I share his opinion that this dynamic—whether taking place between Great Power rivals or at the individual, psychological level—may be the defining challenge of our age. Nathan dedicated himself to trying to understand and address one of the core challenges facing our species—and I cannot think of a more noble and worthwhile way for a brilliant scientist to spend their precious time on this planet. None. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Dr. Scott Janzwood is the Research Director at the Cascade Institute. His research focuses on how scientists and policymakers communicate uncertainty and collaborate to address global catastrophic risks such as climate change, pandemics and other emerging threats. Scott holds a PhD in Global Governance from the University of Waterloo.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal PolicySame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207