MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WPS, Gender, and Disabilities

2018· reference-entry· en· W2953870106 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deborah Stienstra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityNormativeContext (archaeology)Political scienceGender studiesInclusion (mineral)Security councilPower (physics)Conflict resolutionSociologyPoliticsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the key gaps, in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) is found at the intersections of women and disability. This chapter demonstrates that women and girls with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to violence in conflicts and remain invisible and excluded from most post-conflict processes, including peace-building. Resolution 1325 provides a significant opportunity to ensure the full participation of women with disabilities in peace-building and post-conflict transitions. The normative framework adopted in the 2015 Global Study on the implementation of 1325 is an intersectional approach. Yet, the type of intersectionality adopted is a “gender-first” approach. As the chapter argues, in relation to Canadian foreign and development policies (2017), a gender-first approach assumes that gender is the predominant factor and deals with other intersecting power relations in this context, which often obscures the unique experiences of women with disabilities. Thus, this chapter concludes that implementing an intersectional approach to WPS in practice requires the support and participation of women with disabilities to ensure that their specific needs are acknowledged and institutionalized.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207