MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393320093 · doi:10.26443/firr.v14i2.165

Fostering Inclusivity in Peacekeeping

2024· article· en· W4393320093 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sanya Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueFlux International Relations Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingPolitical sciencePublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations Peacekeeping operations involve a diverse array of stakeholders on the decision-making and enforcement side, ranging from senior officials to troops and civilian personnel, whose backgrounds and perspectives significantly impact mission effectiveness. Gender considerations within recruitment does form an important part of UN’s engagement especially within its foundational mandate of Women, Peace, and Security as outlined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Intersectionality along with cultural contexts within host countries further complicate the recruitment process. Furthermore, while the deliberate inclusion of women is advocated, it often leads to reinforcing stereotypical roles and ‘side streaming; of gender rather than genuine ‘mainstreaming; practices. This paper examines the interconnected challenges of gender stereotypes, cultural understanding, and diversity and inclusivity in peacekeeping recruitment. It argues for a strategic, asset-based, inclusive approach to recruitment and deployment of female peacekeepers, coupled with enhanced cultural sensitivity. Drawing on existing literature and examples, the paper proposes policy recommendations aimed at fostering effective peacekeeping without reinforcing gender stereotypes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.361 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlux International Relations ReviewSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207