MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484593445

Women and Wars: Contested Histories, Uncertain Futures

2013· article· en· W1484593445 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityRefugeeFutures contractPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceSociologyLawGender studiesPublic administration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women and Wars: Contested Histories, Uncertain Futures By Carol Cohn Polity, Cambridge, UK, 2012 256 pp., $26.95 ISBN-13: 978-0745642451REVIEWED BY KRISTEN A. CORDELLCarol Cohn's December 2012 anthology Women and Wars uses descriptions of the varied roles of during conflict to push forward an agenda for full inclusion of their perspective in securing the peace. Women and Wars fills the vacuum left by the women as victims approach that characterized the early 2000's, with a diverse array of options for understanding the roles and perspectives that have during conflict, including: soldiers, civilians, caregivers, sex workers, refugees and internally displaced persons, anti-war activists, and community peacebuilders.Over the last two years the expansion of information on women, peace, and security has been vast both within academia and policy circles. The space once characterized by awkward silences,1 between feminist researchers and security practitioners is closing rapidly - assisted by an improved understanding of why matters during conflict and post conflict. During the preparation of the 2011 U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, the U.S. government reached out to a consortium of civil society groups and academics, of which the author was a member. They were looking for proof (both empirical and anecdotal) that matters in stability operations, and data to show that women's equality is foundational to stability and security. Cohn's book is an excellent example of such proof. It is a series of well tested, field based examples of why matters during and after war.As founding director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, Cohn's access and professional history have led to a book the strengths of which lie firstly in its diversity of subjects (the roles of in war), and, secondly, in its' diversity of effort (the chapter authors). An introductory chapter provides context and concepts, setting the stage for an inclusive understanding of peace and security. Individual chapters within the book are authored by well-known scholars and practitioners, regularly relying on real life examples of impacts and outcomes. Chapters are organized thematically and cover such issues as security sector reform, disarmament, sexual and based violence, returnee and refugee issues. As a result, the traditional lens through which womens' participation in conflict has been seen for so long, that of victimhood, erodes with each compelling and wellwritten chapter.Research has proven that the inclusion of earlier in the process of peace building and peacekeeping leads to greater security for the state as a whole.2 We also know that parity plays a strong role in state stability. A 2005 study funded by the Canadian government assessing what factors make fragile states more so, concluded that gender parity may play a strong and measurable role in the stability of the state3 even when separated from other known correlations. In other words, it showed that it is not just a matter of more developed societies being more stable, and more developed societies also being societies marked by greater equity, but rather that equity may well increase stability.4 Inequitable societies (i.e. societies in which a portion of the population, principally and/or ethnic minorities, are oppressed) show a much higher propensity to solve their international disputes by initiating violence and war.5 Countries with a lower level of equality are more likely to engage in violence, international crises, and disputes.6Transversely, research shows, as do many failed nation building experiments, that leaving out of rebuilding and renegotiating in the post conflict space has dramatically harmful impacts on the direction of society by reducing stability and prosperity.7 In other words, inclusivity begets stability. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207