MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399173382 · doi:10.3138/utlj_2024_0006

‘Private’ diplomacy and nuclear disarmament: Revisiting the Cold War activism of Women for a Meaningful Summit

2024· article· en· W4399173382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen Engle

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisarmamentSummitCold warDiplomacyPolitical scienceNuclear weaponPolitical economyInternational tradeLawSociologyPoliticsGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses some of Karen Knop’s insights throughout her career, including about the World War I-era women’s peace movement, to resurface and reread the anti-nuclear activism of the international women’s peace movement of the mid-to-late 1980s. It focuses specifically on the history and work of Women for a Meaningful Summit (WMS), an ad hoc group of women who came together to exert, through what some participants called ‘private’ diplomacy, a direct impact on the late Cold War summits between President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. Reading the WMS archives through a Knopian lens, the article considers the group’s engagement with international law as part of an international civil society that intentionally crossed national boundaries and alliances, its deployment of a repertoire of strategies that combined relatively mainstream diplomatic approaches with grassroots activism, its faith in and sometimes creative use of international law, and its various articulations of the relation between peace and gender. Attending throughout to the erasure of Cold War anti-nuclear activism in contemporary feminist approaches to international law, the article concludes by demonstrating some of the ways in which international legal approaches to the war in Ukraine also rely on this active erasure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207