Building future coexistence or keeping people apart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the importance of cross‐communal cooperation and its contribution to peacebuilding and reconciliation in Northern Ireland through the opinions of 752 respondents. Design/methodology/approach A multivariate analysis of the respondents' opinions was gathered through a Public Opinion Survey (MBU 2006), which addresses the issue of physical separation of the Catholic and Protestant communities in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process. Findings Findings indicate that religion is a key variable in any discussion of the sustainability of the Northern Ireland peace process in relation to cross‐community initiatives, social and economic integration as well as existing divisions between both communities. Moreover, professional and skilled worker respondents disagreed that the impacts of physical separation between both communities supports the peace process. Catholic Nationalists and respondents from Belfast city and the Western region of Northern Ireland were less likely to perceive the physical separation of both communities as negatively impacting the peace process. Practical implications The implication for practice necessitates that the liberal peacebuilding model includes hybrid approaches to harness external economic aid in post‐accord societies that are inclusive of local people, ideas and concerns. Originality/value The value of the paper to practitioners and policymakers is that the research on the impact of external economic aid on cross community conflict must include the triangulation of both qualitative and quantitative methods to fully grasp its complexity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".