MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400783541 · doi:10.25730/vsu.2070.19.032

On the issue of low-intensity conflicts in the USA strategy

2020· article· ru· W4400783541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Д.А. Садаков

Bibliographic record

VenueВестник гуманитарного образования · 2020
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensity (physics)Political sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Аннотация. Статья посвящена проблеме использования в научном обороте термина конфликты низкой интенсивности . Это понятие появилось в поствьетнамскую эру в риторике американских политиков и военных в качестве эвфемизма для вооруженных противостояний с партизанским движением или повстанцами. В январе 1986 г. госсекретарь Дж. Шульц назвал данный тип конфликтов важнейшим вызовом, с которым США будут сталкиваться как минимум до конца XX века. Понятие конфликт низкой интенсивности используется и в американских официальных документах, в частности в полевом уставе сухопутных войск США. В то же время ученые, занимавшиеся данной проблематикой, отмечали размытость и туманность данного термина. В статье предпринята попытка описать спектр мнений различных отечественных и зарубежных исследователей по вопросу об определении термина конфликты низкой интенсивности , в том числе авторов коллективной монографии Института США и Канады РАН Конфликты низкой интенсивности в американской военнополитической стратегии в начале XXI века , изданной в 2018 г. Abstract. The article is devoted to the problem of using the term low-intensity conflicts in scientific terms. This concept appeared in the post-Vietnam era in the rhetoric of American politicians and the military as a euphemism for armed confrontations with the guerrilla movement or rebels. In January, 1986, Secretary of state J. D. Schultz called this type of conflict the most important challenge that the United States would face at least until the end of the XX century. The concept of low-intensity conflict is also used in American official documents, in particular in the field Charter of the US army. At the same time, scientists who dealt with this problem noted the vagueness and nebula of this term. The article attempts to describe the range of opinions of various domestic and foreign researchers on the definition of the term low-intensity conflicts, including the authors of the collective monograph of the Institute of the United States and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences Low-intensity conflicts in American military-political strategy at the beginning of the XXI century, published in 2018.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueВестник гуманитарного образованияSame topicEconomic Sanctions and International RelationsFrench-language works237,207