Challenges of Regional Peace after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), concluded between the Government of Sudan and the leadership of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) in January 2005, ended a 22 years lasting civil war. The core of the CPA document is the agreement on power and wealth sharing, tackling the main causes of the conflict: unfair distribution of power and marginalization of the majority of the population. The conclusion of the CPA is not only the merit of the two warring parties but also an outcome of the commitment of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the special envoy of the Kenyan government, General Lazaro Sumbeiywo, and the IGAD Partners' Forum which includes the governments of the USA, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, Italy and the United Nations (UN). This success has been overshadowed by the war in Darfur in western Sudan which has been raging since 2003. Moreover, two years after signing the CPA, a speech of the South Sudanese President Salva Kiir on the occasion of the anniversary of the CPA brought some fundamental shortcomings in the implementation to public light. Has the peace process in Sudan come to a standstill? Is the war in Darfur related to the peace in South Sudan? How does the mixture of war and peace in Sudan affect the sub-region of the Greater Horn? What are the challenges for the institutions that had been involved in creating the CPA?
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".