The <i>de facto</i> Autonomous Governance and Stability in the Middle East: The Case of Kurds in Rojava
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the fight against ideological warfare of the Islamic State (ISIS) would not be possible without an effective counter ground operation led by the Kurds, these unique players in regional stability have contributed to the mitigation, and in some cases the elimination of Islamist extremist ideology, conducing to the human security of the region.Viewing these actions within a pro-democracy approach, this paper will demonstrate why the international community, led by the United States and EU, needs to, indeed ought to consider the Kurdish de facto autonomous region model as an element for stability.The resulting outcome could help contribute to the regional security of the Middle East, and also prevent the perpetration of any future atrocities against the Kurds and other minorities.Through a collective case study and a qualitative set of data, this paper will evaluate the de facto autonomous governance experience of the Kurds, its impact, and its potential.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it