Bibliographic record
Abstract
The peacekeeper—impartial, disciplined, helpful and restrained in their lethal capacity—is a powerful trope. This book examines the mythology of international peacekeeping and focuses on Canada as a case study of a "peacekeeper par excellence" (Jockel, 1994) and the ways the peacekeeping myth both challenged and condoned combat activities in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. While Afghanistan was explicitly not a peacekeeping mission, peacekeeping mythology circulated throughout discourse about the War. The book examines the salience of the peacekeeping myth throughout twelve years of Canadian combat activities in Afghanistan as a means to illustrate the adaptability and political utility of this (inter)national myth. It examines how gender, militarism, and nationalism operated in political discourse through the War in Afghanistan to justify military force and violence in the name of peace. The book draws on the Canadian case to address a broader set of questions related to how militarism, gender, and national myths are co-constitutive in condoning military violence of so-called "peaceful" liberal nations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".