MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989235040

Analysing person-exposure patterns in lone-actor terrorism: Implications for threat assessment and intelligence gathering

2020· article· en· W6989235040 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyOffice of Naval ResearchPublic Safety CanadaDefence Science and Technology GroupDefence Science and Technology LaboratoryEuropean CommissionU.S. Department of Homeland Security
KeywordsTypologyCommitSituational ethicsThreat assessmentTerrorismStressorPopulationIntelligence analysisSituation awarenessAntecedent (behavioral psychology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lone-actor terrorist population can be extremely heterogenous and difficult to detect. Intelligence is key to countering this threat. This study devises a typology of person-environment interactions which could serve as a framework for intelligence-gathering and risk assessment. We use cluster analysis and a previously-developed Risk Analysis Framework (RAF) to identify relations between three components: propensity, situation and network. The analysis reveals four person-exposure patterns (PEPs): solitary, susceptible, situational and selection. The solitary PEP lacks common indicators of a propensity to pursue terrorist action. What indicators are present may not manifest until late in the offending process. The susceptible PEP suggests a style of interaction whereby cognitive susceptibility, manifesting as mental illness, is a key factor in the emergence of the propensity/motivation to commit a terrorist attack. This configuration typifies cases where radicalisation may occur in a short time span. The situational PEP demonstrates how situational stressors may act as warnings of acceleration towards violent action; the challenge being to capture evidence of these stressors and their effects. Lastly, the selection PEP demonstrates higher frequencies of leakage and antecedent violent behaviours. These offenders may be known to the community or other agencies, suggesting specific opportunities for detection and disruption.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)Same topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207