MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157298999 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9324

Gender and Peacekeeping

2018· article· en· W3157298999 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingPolitical scienceConflict resolutionWork (physics)Public administrationLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major challenge for contemporary military policy makers has been the integration of gender into policy. Since 2000, Canada has opened all military roles (including combat and naval ones) to women. This includes Canadian participation in peacekeeping operations (PKO), an essential part of the national identity. From Lester B. Pearson’s work with the United Nations during the Suez crisis to missions in Haiti, Cyprus and Bosnia, Canada has been a part of multilateral operations to support peaceful resolution of conflicts throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Tens of thousands of Canadians have served in over 40 peacekeeping and peace support operations since the 1960s (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2011, 2012). Despite the freedom to participate, women still constitute a significant minority of Canadian and UN peacekeeping forces. Yet, the nature of PKO and the roles Canadians play today has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War. The impact of armed conflict on women has dramatically increased and the violation of women’s rights has become a focal point in most modern conflicts. Due to the changes in conflicts and the role of a peacekeeper, the integration of gender into all aspects of peacekeeping operations would significantly increase their operational effectiveness. I will begin by explaining the types of modern peacekeeping operations, defining the concept of gender and discussing how operational effectiveness of peacekeeping is measured. Utilizing this definition of operational effectiveness, this presentation will explore how the inclusion of gender will increase operational effectiveness from two perspectives – that of the peacekeeper and that of the victim.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.219 · 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