The Liminal Figure of the Civilian and the Necropolitics of Protection
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
Abstract Recent literature on contemporary humanitarian governance brings to light complex rationales of care and control that give expression to the ongoing coloniality of power. This paper examines the protection of civilians (PoC) from a similar vantage point. Over the past few decades, the goal of protecting civilians has produced a broad assemblage meant to guide military, police, and humanitarian operations in conflict environments. This paper argues that to “protect civilians” is to rationalize human life along a narrow biopolitical continuum grounded in the liminal figure of the civilian, a figure that in war can appear alive or dead. While the goal of protection is evidently to keep civilians alive, the rationality at work in the PoC assemblage has also given way to a particular form of necropolitics that enmeshes life and death. Following a familiar colonial profile, but one that functions to obscure racialization, the necropolitics at work in PoC begin with a quantificatory episteme of accounting for, and a counting of, civilian casualties. This has led to the establishment of civilian casualty tracking and mitigation cells as a model meant to generate lessons learned from civilian casualties. At work in the PoC, therefore, is a political theory of life that enmeshes a form of biopolitics and necropolitics: a politics of life and a politics of death.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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