Our State / Ourselves: Discourses on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Police Peacekeeping
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents findings from interview research with Canadian police officers deployed to the UN peacekeeping missions in Haiti between 2004 and 2017. Focusing on the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), we present three discourses that emerge from this research and their reasoning about the problem of SEA. These discourses suggest that (1) other contributing countries are responsible for the problem of SEA; (2) the UN fails to sanction SEA in practice, while Canada does sanction SEA; and (3) Haitians and Haitian culture undermines efforts to reduce SEA. Using tools of critical discourse analysis, we show how discourses on SEA reinforce a mentality of self-exemption that treats sexual misconduct as a problem in which Canada and Canadians are largely innocent, while the UN, other contributing countries, and Haitians themselves, bear much more fault. We argue that these discourses reproduce a narrative of innocence and contribute to Canada’s national mythology as a do-gooder nation that is largely exempt from perpetrating SEA, despite evidence to the contrary.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it