MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7006928669

Why Organizations Fight: Wars of Choice in an Age of Instability

2017· dissertation· en· W7006928669 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersChongqing Science and Technology CommissionCanadian Armed ForcesInternational Atomic Energy AgencyEuropean CommissionIsrael Science FoundationUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsNorth Atlantic TreatyMandateCollective securityTreatyScope (computer science)Security councilInternational relationsInternational securityMultilateralismInternational communityCollective action
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why Organizations Fight: Wars of Choice in an Age of Instability examines the participation of three international organizations, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union, across three wars: The War in Afghanistan, the War in Libya, and the War in Iraq. Each of these organizations have, as their mandate, crisis management and crisis response. As such, states have a number of organizational frameworks that they can select from. However, given the overlap in mandates, the organization that is chosen to lead is not necessarily a given. When an organization is selected by a state, or group of states, for a mission, that organization may find itself in a conflict zone that falls far beyond its initial scope and mandate. How did it come to be, for example, that NATO, a regional collective defence organization, would find itself fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan? Why, in spite of strong member-state preferences for an EU-led response in Libya, was NATO given the lead? And why did the United States, the preeminent military power, go to such lengths to try and secure a United Nations Security Council mandate for actions against Iraq? In asking these three questions, this dissertation is based on a much broader question: How are the roles of international organizations negotiated in large-scale international conflict? This dissertation argues that international organizations play an active role in shaping policy and outcomes on the battlefield. Although one may expect organizations to represent the interests of their membership, this is not always the case. Driven by their interest in survival, organizations must continuously demonstrate both material and political relevance. But demonstrating relevance is not always a straightforward process. Ensuring the survival of an organization requires navigating a complex security environment with a multiplicity of competing, and sometimes contradictory, interests.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0320.063
Scholarly communication0.0270.034
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicLegionella and Acanthamoeba researchFrench-language works237,207