Doing less with less? Peacekeeping retrenchment and the UN's protection of civilians agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres’s Action for Peacekeeping initiative represents the latest in a series of efforts to make the UN’s peace and security architecture “fit for the future.” The Action for Peacekeeping initiative, however, has exposed two seemingly contradictory tendencies at work in contemporary peacekeeping. On the one hand, peacekeeping operations are increasingly expected to be lean, efficient, and performance-focused. On the other, expansive protection of civilians (PoC) mandates, which entail everything from predicting and pre-empting attacks against civilians to reforming state-level security institutions, are becoming increasingly central to contemporary peacekeeping. In this paper, we will suggest that as currently framed, the UN’s peacekeeping reform agenda—driven at least in part by downward budgetary pressures—will inevitably increase the gap between promise and performance with regard to PoC, with serious implications for the credibility and legitimacy of UN missions among the populations they are mandated to protect.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".