Non-Governmental Organizations in Human Security in the Context of (Neo)Liberal Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presented analysis critically investigates the role of non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) in the area of human security, specifically in humanitarian disarmament. Theobjective of the first half is to map the existing discourse on NGOs in this area. After an outline ofthe characteristics of the field, what follows is an empirical analysis of the discourse on thecampaign to ban landmines in its much celebrated role of a model of humanitarian disarmament.The second half has a rebuttal of the belief in the emancipatory role of NGOs in this issue area asits main aim. Foucault’s theorization and conceptualization of the development of liberalism andneo-liberalism serve as the basis for this task. The provided interpretation rests on three arguments.First, the notion of newness and lack of precedents regarding the role of NGOs in this area isflawed. Empirical material that deals with 19th Century liberally-based campaigns for humanitariandisarmament will be used to support this claim. Second, the image of soft power as allegedlycharacterizing the relationship between NGOs and governments in this area is challenged. In orderto correct such a portrayal, characteristics of the recent neo-liberal, disciplinary regime in whichNGOs have had to operate are provided. Finally, the commonly held idea that one needs to studythe accompanying processes at the global level is rectified. As a result, it is argued that micro-processes within domestic institutional settings and the move from the domestic transformations ofthe non-profit sector in Canada to the global desecuritization of human security also need to beexamined.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".