Seeking Inclusion, Breeding Exclusion? The UN’s wps Agenda and the Syrian Peace Talks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article analyzes the Women’s Advisory Board ( wab ) to the UN Special Envoy for Syria, a unique mechanism designed to include women in peace processes. Has the wab fulfilled its objective? Based on ethnographic material, and primary and secondary sources, we argue that the wab fostered a sentiment of exclusion among some of its members and of the broader spectrum of Syrian women’s organizations. The article further suggests that the wab failed to meaningfully include women in the Syria peace process. The sources of these failures can be located in the process by which wab participants were selected and the ‘peacemaker’ identity that they were assigned. The limits associated with the process of selection and the substance of the women’s engagement are inherent to the way the UN frames and justifies women’s inclusion. The wab , it concludes, should not be hastily replicated as a mechanism of women’s inclusion.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".