MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560588030

Behind the Myth of Innocence: Regendering the Violence of War

2003· article· en· W1560588030 on OpenAlex
Laura Stovel

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Conflict Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInnocenceSecurity councilEconomic JusticeConflict resolutionPolitical scienceMythologyPeacebuildingSecretary generalEquity (law)LawSociologyTheologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 2000, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1325, calling for the “broad participation of women in peacebuilding, (and) post-conflict reconstruction.” The resolution highlighted the increased targeting of women and children in war and “the need to increase their role in decision-making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution.”1 In discussions preceding the resolution’s adoption, delegates implied that including women’s perspectives in peace-building would not only enhance justice and equity, it would also contribute greatly to the success of peace efforts. Durga Prasad Bhattarai of Nepal’s Permanent Mission to the UN, reflected the general tone of the speeches when he said that women tend to be “more sincere, more reliable, and more compassionate” than men, and “shunned violence more consistently.”2 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave a glowing account of women’s potential for peacework:

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.271 · 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