Martialling Peace: How the Peacekeeping Myth Legitimises Warfare by Nicole Wegner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nicole Wegner’s Martialling Peace: How the Peacekeeping Myth Legitimises Warfare (2023) critically examines the militarized underpinnings of peacekeeping through the lens of Feminist International Relations, Gender Studies, and Critical Military Studies. Using discourse analysis, Wegner dissects the “peacekeeping myth,” which portrays peacekeeping as neutral and benevolent while legitimizing military interventions. Focusing primarily on Canada, the book explores how peacekeeping aligns with national identity and state-building, reinforcing a martial ideology that extends to military and police institutions. The case of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and its treatment of Indigenous populations highlights the racial and colonial dimensions of peacekeeping narratives. The book challenges traditional perceptions of peace, arguing that peacekeeping often perpetuates violence under the guise of stability. While offering valuable critiques, its narrow focus on Canada limits its global applicability. Nonetheless, Martialling Peace provides essential insights into the interplay between militarism and peacekeeping, advocating for alternative, non-militarized peace approaches.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".