MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019006581

The Ethics of Inclusion:Gender Integration, Equal Opportunity, and Sexual Assault in the Australian, British, Canadian and U.S. Armed Forces

2015· article· en· W7019006581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Portal (King's College London) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual assaultPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSexual abuseGovernment (linguistics)Homicide
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women have played diverse roles in military campaigns for centuries, but it was only during the 20 th century that their work with or in the Australian, British, Canadian and US armed forces became increasingly formalised, important and permanent.Today official declarations abound avowing the indispensability of gender inclusiveness and diversity for military effectiveness in the 21 st century operating environment.Today's "militaries rely more and more on women and members of visible minority and Aboriginal groups to fill their ranks, rendering the recruitment, retention, and optimum employment of these members important to the success of the organizationfrom the perspectives of both operations and public accountability". 1 In some units and services women and members of non-white ethnic, non-Judeo-Christian religious or non-heterosexual minorities have been integrated effectively. 2However, equal opportunity and diversity policies have not been uniformly successful; for individuals who identify with several minority groups the situation can be especially precarious.High rates of sexual harassment, assault and rape in the military make these shortcomings glaringly obvious.That such offences happen at

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Portal (King's College London)Same topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207