MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410478816 · doi:10.1080/23337486.2025.2507440

Critiquing unearned military privilege: unpacking the invisible duffle bag

2025· article· en· W4410478816 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Military Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnpackingPrivilege (computing)LawSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Encounters article explores how unearned privilege in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is structured, how it operates to privilege certain personnel over others with negative implications for the health and well-being of those who are marginalized, and how it can be changed to the benefit of CAF personnel and the organization as a whole, as well as Canadian society. The article adapts Peggy McIntosh’s ‘White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack’ to a military context, to unpack the ways in which everyday military privilege operates in the CAF, like an invisible duffle bag of military norms, policies, power relations, practices, traditions, and training. The checklist can be used to begin, continue, and enhance conversations about military culture change by exploring how individual privilege is connected to and enabled by structural power relations. The article concludes with a discussion of the importance of understanding how military privilege intersects with societal privilege, with concomitant implications for both contexts.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.373 · 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