Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract UN peace operations increasingly deploy police forces and engage in policing tasks. The turn to ‘police peacekeeping’ has generally been met with enthusiasm in both academic and policy circles. Policing is often understood to provide a more civilian instrument of intervention, and rebuilding local police forces along democratic, liberal lines is seen as a prerequisite for a successful transition towards peace and stability. This book questions this optimistic reading of police peacekeeping. It demonstrates that the logic of policing leads to the depoliticization of conflict and the criminalization of those who are deemed to threaten not just public order but social order, authorizing violence against them in the name of law enforcement. The book proposes a new way of studying peace operations that focuses not on their success or failure, but on how they allow people and ideas to circulate transnationally. It shows that peace operations act as a point of cross-fertilization for the creation and transmission of policing discourses and practices globally. In so doing, these missions contribute to (re)producing social orders that are based on the exclusion of often racialized, socio-economically marginalized populations, both ‘domestically’ (in countries of intervention) and ‘internationally’ (in troop contributing countries). The book contributes to critical understandings of police power that show that police forces were never meant to protect all equally. Drawing on interpretive, feminist, and postcolonial methodologies that emphasize relations, processes, and situatedness, the book’s in-depth study of UN intervention in Haiti shows how a single site can help illuminate global processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".