<b>UNDERSTANDING THE PARTICIPATION OF MIDDLE POWERS IN UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING: CASE STUDIES OF CANADA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation investigates the involvement of middle powers in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs), specifically focusing on Canada and the Republic of Korea. The primary objective of this research is to comprehend the motives and behaviors of middle powers when engaging in peacekeeping efforts and to identify the key factors that influence their decisions. To achieve this goal, a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and documentary analyses, is employed. The analysis draws data from government documents, reports, academic articles, and United Nations databases.The political, security, economic, institutional, and normative rationales identified by Bellamy and Williams (2013) have a substantial influence on the involvement of middle powers in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs). Although some rationales might hold greater prominence, the study recognizes that each rationale affects the choices made by middle powers to participate in UNPKOs. The research presents five hypotheses aimed at elucidating middle powers' engagement in UNPKOs and investigates the factors influencing countries' decisions to take part in these operations, particularly focusing on middle powers. The case studies of Canada and the Republic of Korea provide valuable insights into the diverse factors influencing middle powers' engagement in UNPKOs.The study's findings hold implications for policymakers and practitioners in the field of middle powers and peacekeeping operations. Comprehending the factors influencing middle powers and their motivations can guide the development of effective strategies for engaging these actors and leveraging their unique capabilities in achieving peace and security objectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".