MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041695475 · doi:10.18192/potentia.v7i0.4423

Sexual Abuse and Exploitation at the Hands of Peacekeepers

2016· article· en· W3041695475 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kristina R. Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenuePotentia Journal of International Affairs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingLegitimacyScholarshipPolitical scienceSexual abuseMasculinityCriminologySexual violencePoliticsSociologyComputer securityLawPoison controlGender studiesSuicide preventionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas much of the existing scholarship focuses on the implications of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict reconstruction as a tool of war, this paper instead seeks to explore the implications of sexual exploitation and abuse at the hands of peacekeepers. As allegations of sexual violence by peacekeepers have continued to persist, these reports identify a potential legitimacy crisis not only for peacekeeping operations and the United Nations, but of the evolving concept of human security. Constituting a paradigm shift of sorts, the streamlining of the concept of ‘human security’ has visibly begun to influence and change global politics and institutions. This paper explores these additional considerations while identifying two specific challenges to addressing the problem, specifically militarized masculinity and the fragile and complex environments in which peacekeeping operations operate in.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePotentia Journal of International AffairsSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207