Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper refutes Ann Tickner's (1992) statement that '[w]omen have defined security as the absence of violence whether it be military, economic or sexual'. First, the paper maintains that in the absence of a category representative of the 'general woman', and because there are categories aggregating 'particular women' who hold their unique understandings of security, this part of Tickner's (2001) statement, which is based on the actor's identity, must fail. Second, having examined whether the definition of security as the absence of violence-military, economic, or sexual-represents an exclusive female approach, the paper concludes that the meaning of security depends on considerations specific to particular individual persons, hence may or may not be gender specific. Third, the paper questions the existence of two types of security - a 'security redux' less a 'human' attribute versus human security. It finds that although the inception of the concept of human security may be indebted to feminist thought, its grounding in the human rights discourse has so far not led to a corresponding transformation of the security discourse. This applies equally to the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect - a direct 'sequel' to the conceptualisation of human security.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".