Human Security and Public Diplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both human security and public diplomacy have been openly criticised for their lack of precision. They also both belong to the area of foreign policy. This paper deals with the interplay between public diplomacy and human security in the field of foreign policy. First, definitions of human security are reviewed, and three main groups of definitions of this term are provided. Second, the concept of public diplomacy is explained, emphasising the evolution of “classic” diplomacy and its functions. The final part of the paper looks at the relevance of public diplomacy to the promotion of human security. To do so, case studies of policies of the two main human security supporters, Japan and Canada, have been scrutinised. The main research question posed is whether public diplomacy, and its modern tools such as digital technologies, is used to spread human security values abroad. The key point is that human security – an official policy of the states that affirm it – is promoted through public diplomacy abroad. To verify this claim, the author has looked at the positions of Japan and Canada in this respect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".