The Adult Gaze: Looking Again at Children and Young People in Peace and Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Young people are often talked about as “the future,” with the dual implication that they will inherit the results of contemporary decision-making and direct policy-making once they reach adulthood. However, it is not only in the future that they will encounter, have to think about, suffer from, and develop expertise in conflict. Building on a growing body of work considering young voices in peace and conflict studies and their participation as future-makers in global politics, this collective discussion looks at where children, youth, and adults meet in this endeavor—and at how conceptions of childhood (as distinct from actual children) can work against such dialogue. We explore what both young people and adults bring to intergenerational exchanges of experience and expertise and how adult ideas of childhood and adult frameworks of inclusion can enable or constrain young people’s contributions to discourses on war and peace. We also disentangle adulthood/adultism from adults, foregrounding the positive roles that the latter can play in dismantling the former. Our goal is to stimulate further conversation about how the barriers to young people’s inclusion in the politics of war and peace are produced, perpetuated, and resisted in the processes of ordering everyday political life.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".