Rethinking Failure: Feminist Peacebuilding and the Peace Continuum in Violent and Illiberal “Post-Conflict” Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article introduces the special forum, “Feminism in the Face of Failure: Peacebuilding in Violent and Illiberal ‘Post-Conflict Settings,'” by exploring feminist responses to the shortcomings of both liberal and illiberal peacebuilding models in fragile post-conflict environments. We introduce the concept of a “peace continuum,” challenging traditional binary approaches to peace and conflict. Our framework highlights how grassroots feminist activists, often excluded from formal peace processes, persist in their peacebuilding efforts even amidst renewed violence, authoritarianism, and failed peace agreements. Drawing on examples from countries such as Colombia, Afghanistan, and Myanmar, the forum showcases how women are leading nonmilitarized, inclusive, and locally grounded peace efforts despite the collapse of formal peace processes. The articles collectively emphasize the resilience, intentionality, and ongoing activism of women in reshaping peace, advocating for gender equality, and addressing structural violence in their societies. The issue calls for broader recognition and support for these crucial, often overlooked, feminist peacebuilding efforts, even in situations deemed “failures.”
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".