MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086899903 · doi:10.1177/0020702014564799

Gender essentialism in Canadian foreign aid commitments to women, peace, and security

2015· article· en· W2086899903 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Tiessen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssentialismPolitical scienceGender equalityInternational securityGender studiesForeign policySituatedSociologyPromotion (chess)Public administrationGovernment (linguistics)LawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada has made a wide range of commitments to the promotion of gender equality in development assistance programming. However, in its fragile states programs, these commitments have in fact promoted gender essentialism, treating women as victims of violence rather than as active agents of peace and development. Drawing on a comparative analysis of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security arising from the passing of Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) and on interviews conducted with a small sample of current and former Canadian government officials, this article documents and analyzes Canada’s comparatively weak and limited efforts to promote gender equality abroad under the Harper Conservatives, particularly for fragile and conflict-affected states. The research presented here is situated within broader feminist critiques of international relations and Canadian foreign policy, which document the centrality of gender equality to security and the role that international and national policies play in shaping gendered security dynamics.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0460.028
Scholarly communication0.0120.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207