After the bombing of the Norwegian Government Quarter on 22 July 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines the evolution of urban counter-terrorism in Norway from the1990s to 2020 through the case of the Norwegian Government Quarter. It illustrates how the 22 July 2011 attack impacted the legitimacy of security measures in the public realm. The author shows how terrorism and counter-terrorism measures become highly visible in the public discourses on the rebuilding of the government quarter and in the urban landscape. The chapter analyses how conceptions of terrorism change as well as how counterterrorism measures are legitimised through an exploration of the changing contours of the urban landscape in Norway. Furthermore, this chapter argues that the Norwegian understanding of terrorism builds on historical discourses and that, despite the devastating terrorist attack on the Government Quarter, Norwegian authorities and the public are not willing to simply accept that terrorism is a threat that should be prevented through hard counter-terrorism measures. There is still resistance to accept hard security measures in the urban environment, and attempts have been made to solve this by redesigning the hard measures into more soft and aesthetic measures.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".