Feminist Foreign Policy 3.0: Advancing Ethics and Gender Equality in Global Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of states, including Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and the United Kingdom, have adopted gender- and feminist-informed approaches to their foreign and security policies. Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was launched in 2014 and rests on the idea that gender equality is central to security and foreign policy. This article conducts an analysis of the incremental development of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy. It underlines three pillars that have informed Swedish foreign policy: rights, representation, and resources. The article assesses how these three pillars have been transformed into distinct policy and practice. It makes the following three conclusions. First, Sweden’s feminist foreign policy is distinguished by its working method pertaining to norm change whereby gendered practices and structures in global politics are challenged. Second, from the outset Sweden’s feminist foreign policy has pursued a head-wind agenda, which reflects a readiness to confront contestation in global politics. Third, as a way of tackling resistance and promoting pro-norm equality diffusion a fourth “R” has been advanced, which stands for reality checks and research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".