MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580397692

Peacekeepers or Perpetrators? An analysis of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) by UN personnel in the Democratic Republic of Congo

2012· article· en· W1580397692 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingDemocracyPolitical scienceSexual abuseCriminologyGender studiesSociologyLawPoison controlSuicide prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some individuals in the western world may find the large scale sexual violence committed against women in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) shocking.They may turn a sympathetic ear to the occasional news report detailing the realities of mass rape, genital mutilation and forced prostitution which face Congo women on a daily basis (Meger 2010; 119-20).However, far too often the horrors over "there" in the third world are promptly forgotten and the conscience assuaged by affirming oneself that responsibility is out of "our" jurisdiction.Amidst this environment UN presence is supposed to function as a beacon of peace and hope.However, amongst UN peacekeepers sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) of civilians, most frequently women and girls, in the Congo has proliferated (Murphy, 2006: 532).These specific instances of sexual abuse are part of the larger culture of sexualized violence and exploitation in the Congo.They are an epidemic today, no less real than the spread of HIV/AIDS or famine.More specifically, academics should be concerned with analyzing how constructs of gender enforce and create such behaviours.The question this essay addresses is to what extent feminist theory explains SEA of females in post-conflict DRC by UN personal whom are deployed for the United Nations Organization Mission in Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC).Not only are the incidents of SEA important but the ramifications of these actions; spread of HIV/AIDS, "peacekeeping babies," shame, and the further entrenchment of gender inequalities into society must also be considered (Murphy, 2006: 534-5;Higate, 2007; 100).This essay argues that feminist theory is particularly illuminating in explaining how conceptualizations of gender and resulting unequal power structures cause SEA and shape the reaction of international actors such as the UN.The discourse this essay engages in is normative, which means that it does not detach itself from values to attempt to achieve objectivity rather its depth is enriched by them (Carver et al. 2003:289).The essay will be broken down into seven major sections and, when necessary, subsections that will analyze how corresponding aspects of feminist theory highlight aspects of the case study.The first section considers gender as the unit of analysis and discusses how social conceptions of both masculinity and femininity as a "natural" fosterer of inequality and exploitation.The second section argues that international relations are conflictive and designed to exclude women.The next section discusses how patriarchy characterizes the international system and the impacts this has on the rights of women living in the DRC.The fourth section

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · 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