MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408406827 · doi:10.1177/07388942251317428

Talking bodies: Hostage concessions in civil war

2025· article· en· W4408406827 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Blair Welsh

Bibliographic record

VenueConflict Management and Peace Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilInstitute for Humane Studies, George Mason UniversityMitacs
KeywordsSpanish Civil WarPolitical scienceCriminologyLawLaw and economicsPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations often set high demands for the release of hostages in civil war. Despite a purported restraint on state concessions to hostage-takers, exchanges between militants and national governments for the release of hostages have reached unprecedented levels in recent years. It is unknown, however, when states concede to insurgents for the release of hostage victims. Given substantial costs associated with granting concessions, I argue that governments only concede for the release of hostages where the victim is likely to attract attention, compelling states to intervene. This occurs when the hostage is a high-profile victim. I test the theory with original and granular data on the Philippines (1975–2018). The data document hostage-takings and concessions between six insurgent groups and the government. The analysis provides robust support for the theory. The findings unveil important insights for policy and research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConflict Management and Peace ScienceSame topicPolitical Conflict and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207