MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993049790 · doi:10.2307/40203945

Feminist Perspectives on Canadian Foreign Policy

2004· article· en· W1993049790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa Haussman, Claire Turenne Sjolander, Heather A. Smith, Deborah Stienstra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyPolitical sciencePolitical economySociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contributors Acronyms Preface 1. Taking Up and Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Feminists, Gender, and Canadian Foreign Policy 2. Engaging the Possibilities of Magic: Feminist Pedagogy and Canadian Foreign Policy Part 1: Internationalism and Globalization 3. Disrupting Internationalism and Finding the Others 4. Gender and Canadian Trade Policy: Women's Strategies for Access and Transformation 5. Of Playing Fields, Competitiveness and the Will to Win: Representations of Gender and Globalization Part 2: Human Security 6. Militarized Masculinities and the Politics of Peacekeeping: The Canadian Case 7. Myths of Canada's Human Security Pursuits: Tales of Tool Boxes, Toy Chests, and Tickle Trunks 8. Masculinities, Femininities, and Sustainable Development: A Gender Analysis of DFAIT's Sustainable Development Strategy Section 3: Human Rights 9. Women's Human Rights: Canada at Home and Abroad 10. Discourses and Feminist Dilemmas: Trafficking, Prostitution, and the Sex Trade in the Philippines 11. The Contradictions of Canadian Commitments to Refugee Women Section 4: Women's Organizing 12. It's Time for Change: A Feminist Discussion of Resistance and Transformation in Periods of Liberal World Order 13. Organizing for Beijing: Canadian NGOs and the Fourth World Conference on Women 14. Gendered Dissonance: Feminists, FAFIA, and Canadian Foreign Policy Bibliography Index

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207