Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, an external review into sexual harassment and misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), conducted by former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps, found that there was a sexualized culture in the organization. In light of this report, much attention has been (rightly) focused on women, and there is a large body of research exploring the related experiences of women in the CAF. What is less examined is the way in which sexual harassment and its related misconduct is gendered within the organization, and how it marginalizes those women and men in the CAF who do not conform to a warrior narrative. In this article, I focus on the ways in which military masculinities and femininities are performed in the CAF. I argue that it is important to understand how women and men who do not perform expected and accepted forms of masculinity (and femininity) are marginalized. I examine masculinity in the CAF from historical and contemporary perspectives. Problematizing men's service through the lens of masculinity can help in understanding how gender operates for men and women, as well as for those who do not fit that binary; this, in turn, can help inform cultural change in response to Deschamps.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".