The Politics of Feminist Foreign Policy and Digital Diplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Series publishes cutting-edge scholarship on foreign policy with a global focus, including single case studies (on the foreign policy of a particular state), comparative studies, and studies on particular themes or issues (such as gender and foreign policy).In this way, the Series contributes to broadening the existing knowledge of, and debate on, foreign policies and foreign policy analysis.The Series seeks to push the boundaries of Foreign Policy Analysis in three ways.First, it includes scholarship on the foreign policies of states that have often been neglected in the literature.The foreign policy literature has been dominated by studies of the US (by far) and European states as well as the European Union.The Series is inclusive and publishes studies of the foreign policies of states across all regions, as well as studies that compare states in other regions.It also publishes studies of the foreign policies of states with different regime types, from democratic to autocratic.Second, the Series publishes studies that focus on the intersection of foreign policy (analysis) with issues such as gender, race, climate change and new technologies.Studies of gender and foreign policy analysis are still in an incipient stage, with race and foreign policy receiving even less coverage.To the extent that there are studies of gender and foreign policy, these focus predominantly on states in the Global North, such as the US, Canada, and Sweden.There is clearly a need to explore the role that gender -and race -play in foreign policy-making, from decision-making to implementation.Other issues such as climate change and new technologies (for example, artificial intelligence, digital technologies) have not been extensively incorporated into studies of foreign policy, and this Series aims to fill that gap.Third, the Series includes studies based not only in traditional approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations, but also those that use or develop approaches including: the role of emotions; critical theoretical approaches including post-colonial theorising; feminist theories; and international political economy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".