MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304845721 · doi:10.1163/15718069-bja10078

From Peace Talks to Parliaments: The Microprocesses Propelling Women into Formal Politics Following War

2022· article· en· W4304845721 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam J. Anderson, Marc Yvan Valade

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Negotiation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationParliamentPoliticsCivil societyLegislaturePolitical scienceInternational relationsPolitical economyRepresentation (politics)LegislationSociologyPublic administrationLawGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Women’s legislative representation often increases following armed conflict. Although various studies suggest a relationship between gender-inclusive peace negotiations and better outcomes for women, we know little about the processes linking these phenomena. Using social network analysis and drawing on qualitative interviews, we examine women’s participation in Burundi’s peace negotiations (1998–2000) and their increased political participation in post-accord national politics (2000–2005). We find that women’s civil society built social networks reliant on cross-ethnic collaboration and the support of international actors during the peace negotiations. With the aid of those networks, they successfully entered formal politics and passed pro-women legislation, where they developed cross-party alliances and maintained close relationships with civil society, increasing their effectiveness in parliament. This case suggests that evolving social networks are a crucial component of the explanation for women’s increased participation in politics during times of transition from conflict to peace.

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)0.010
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational NegotiationSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207