Neither the Global North nor the Global South: locating the post-Soviet space in/out of the Women, Peace and Security agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite 20 years of theorization on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, a critical review of the WPS literature points to a large, curious, and ignored epistemic gap regarding the post-Soviet space. In this exploratory article, I want to problematize this absence. While the gap can be partly attributed to the Anglophone hegemony in this literature, I suggest an alternative explanation: metageography and the “in-betweenness” of the post-Soviet region as an ambiguous space corresponding to neither the Global North nor the Global South. Drawing on insights from post-socialist feminist theories about the former “Second World,” I argue that the post-Soviet space has been erased from the WPS literature because – as elsewhere in the social sciences – the end of the Cold War rearranged the East/West geopolitical imaginaries into a Global North/Global South divide. Consequently, this epistemic gap creates an incomplete picture of the WPS agenda as a whole. I urge and challenge WPS scholars to pay attention to this region by developing the outline of a more holistic research agenda beyond the Global North/Global South binary.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".