MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416582320 · doi:10.1177/00207020251398032

The gendered contradictions of Canadian peacekeeping

2025· article· en· W4416582320 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra Biskupski‐Mujanovic

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingForeign policyRhetorical questionPosition (finance)Narrative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

United Nations peacekeeping continues to be tied to Canadian identity, albeit in complex and contradictory ways. This research study was motivated by Canada's Elsie Initiative and renewed rhetorical commitments to feminist foreign policy under former prime minister Justin Trudeau. It draws on in-depth interviews with Canadian servicewomen and veterans deployed on UN peacekeeping operations from the 1990s to the early 2020s. Its aim is to understand how peacekeeping continues to be tied to Canadian identity, despite Canada's decline in contributions, and how Canadian women peacekeepers make sense of their roles on missions, including their views on whether their participation improves operational effectiveness. Interview participants described peacekeeping as both meaningful and fraught. Many resisted narratives that position women as solutions to complex mission challenges, noting the burdens of visibility and stereotyping, among others. Contributing to literature on Canadian peacekeeping and its gendered underpinnings, the findings can inform future policy directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0470.025
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207