MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123984967 · doi:10.1163/18754112-1802001

Survival Sex in Peacekeeping Economies

2014· article· en· W3123984967 on OpenAlex
Jena McGill

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Peacekeeping · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingZero toleranceArgument (complex analysis)Sex traffickingInternational relations theoryPolitical scienceInternational relationsEconomicsPolitical economyDevelopment economicsSociologyLawCriminologyMedicinePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the zero tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and sexual abuse by United Nations peacekeepers as it relates to survival sex in peacekeeping economies. Understanding the policy as a form of discursive power, the analysis seeks to reveal the effects of zero tolerance by asking: what is obscured about survival sex in peacekeeping economies when it is viewed through the lens of zero tolerance, and to whose benefit? The argument is that zero tolerance is a poor policy framework to address peacekeeper engagement in survival sex because it fails to grapple with the complex set of economic circumstances that give rise to survival sex decision-making by girls and women in peacekeeping economies. In light of the failures of zero tolerance, a rights-based approach to survival sex in peacekeeping economies represents a more promising means of addressing the issue to the benefit of local girls and women.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.292 · 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