Feminist Foreign Policy: Branded for All, Reserved for Some
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sweden was the first nation to implement an explicitly “Feminist” Foreign Policy (FFP) in 2014. Since then, numerous other nations have followed suit, aiming to develop policies that improve the material realities and equality that women enjoy in their allied nations. It is largely agreed that the Swedish policy is an extension of a larger, historically rooted branding campaign to posit the state as a benevolent actor on the world stage. While there may be significant gains that the state has made in the area of gender equality at home, there are distinct problems with attempting to “copy and paste” their method to a nation with a vastly different historical context than their own. Additionally, as a largely racially homogenous, and wealthy nation, many fundamental ideas of decolonial feminism, and intersectional thought that should underpin the policy are absent. Instead, this nation, and other FFP nations are at risk of reproducing the economic and social structures that they claim to work towards dismantling. I use case studies of two FFP other nations, France and Canada, as well as a comparative analysis of Mexico’s FFP. In these case studies I implement discourse analysis of the following: official government publications, political speeches, and interviews with relevant political actors. I use this discourse to determine three things. I investigate the degree to which neo-colonial and neo-imperial logics are embedded in these supposedly radical policies, the extent to which a branding campaign as a moral superpower state motivates the pursuit of FFP implementation, and the degree to which these policies were successful at achieving the gender equality they set out to.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".