MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405396828 · doi:10.1177/09715215241301448

Feminist Foreign Policy: Testing Times for the Women and Peace Hypothesis

2024· article· en· W4405396828 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annasab Shivaling Mirje, K S Girija

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Gender Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyNegotiationEmpowermentPromotion (chess)Political scienceEconomic growthGender studiesSociologyPoliticsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article analyses feminist foreign policies adopted by Sweden, Canada, France and Mexico to explore how they incorporate the Women and Peace Hypothesis and its application in the present Russia–Ukraine conflict. Of the seven countries that have adopted feminist foreign policies so far, the study selects the above four countries based on their systematic development of the policies once adopted. The study uses qualitative content analysis of both primary and secondary sources. Among primary sources, the study uses foreign-policy documents. It also relies on secondary literature developed around feminist foreign policy and the Women and Peace Hypothesis. The study suggests that Sweden and Canada have strongly incorporated the Women and Peace Hypothesis into their policies. France and Mexico, along with the participation of women in the peace process, give more importance to other aspects of women’s empowerment, such as the promotion of gender equality. In the present scenario, none of these countries stresses on women’s participation in the negotiation to end the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict. This study encourages policymakers to involve women in the peace process for an inclusive, peaceful and prosperous world.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueIndian Journal of Gender StudiesSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207