MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144052269 · doi:10.15273/allons-y.v5i0.10218

Gender Considerations in Advancing the Vancouver Principles in Armed Forces

2021· article· en· W3144052269 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Vanessa Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAllons-y Journal of Children Peace and Security · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationRelation (database)Political scienceMilitary personnelMilitary justicePublic relationsPsychologyLawSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing from United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security and the Vancouver Principles, this paper highlights key factors to be addressed in military training and education to ensure that military members are adequately prepared to protect children affected by conflict and to enhance military capabilities to participate in the prevention of the recruitment and use of child soldiers. Informed by feminist theories and analysis, this paper argues that military professionals are better prepared for the protection of children when they are given the opportunity to explore gender concepts in relation to their own socialization to the military and if they are provided with the right theories and tools to understand and respond to gender and intersectional dynamics of children and armed conflict. The paper suggests that while content that illuminates gender constructs and their relation to the security of children is crucially important, determining the right pedagogic approaches that support the effective training and education of military professionals is equally vital.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.052
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllons-y Journal of Children Peace and SecuritySame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207