Peace and conflict: Alternative strategies of governance and conflict resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the present discourse of conflict resolution and offers an alternative framework for analyzing the generic sources of conflict at the community, state, and interstate levels. In particular, we argue that although peace is a universal value, there are no universally best strategies to achieve it. This, however, does not mean that the path to peace is fundamentally different in every context. We claim that stable democratic political structures in general lead to peace both in the international and the domestic realms. As such, democratization does lead to peace, but the paths to stable democracy are context sensitive. Therefore, the success of efforts aimed at creating long‐term peace, both among and within nations, depends on the extent to which, democratization incorporates the norms and values of the societies in question. The article begins with a brief overview of some of the problems associated with defining peace. We suggest that peace should be looked at as a universal value, as democracy has been in the recent past. We provide a more detailed theoretical assessment of the linkage between democracy and peace. Our general argument is illustrated in the South Asian, specifically the Indian, context.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".