Prepared for presentation at the panel,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Many politicians, leaders, opinion-makers, scholars, bureaucrats, and ordinary people routinely hold that the threat presented to the United States by terrorism is existential in nature. This paper deals with the nature of the challenge presented by terrorism, particularly the international or transnational terrorism that is of most concern to people in the West, and with the losses in human life terrorists have been able to inflict. It then places the issue in broader context, comparing the risk terrorism presents with other hazards to human life that have variously been considered acceptable or unacceptable. It is abundantly clear that under present conditions terrorism, as a hazard to human life in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, is hardly existential. Indeed, applying widely-accepted criteria established after much research by many international regulators and decision-makers, the risks from terrorism are low enough to be deemed “acceptable. ” Mueller and Stewart: Hardly Existential ISA 2010 February 3, 2010 2 An impressively large number of politicians, leaders, opinion-makers, scholars, bureaucrats, and ordinary people routinely hold that the threat presented to the United States by terrorism—and particularly by Al-Qaeda—is existential in nature, that the terrorist challenge is cosmic, enduring (or even endless), and, to use John McCain's favorite word, transcendental.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.631 | 0.366 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".