MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

E<scp>mpowerment or </scp>I<scp>mposition? </scp>D<scp>ilemmas of </scp>L<scp>ocal </scp>O<scp>wnership in </scp>P<scp>ost‐</scp>C<scp>onflict </scp>P<scp>eacebuilding </scp>P<scp>rocesses</scp>

2009· article· en· W2023458629 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePeace &amp Change · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacebuildingOperationalizationPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines questions of local ownership in post‐conflict peacebuilding and makes the case that the complex relationship between insiders and outsiders lies at the very heart of contemporary peacebuilding processes. While the discourse of local ownership has increasingly become part of the vocabulary of post‐conflict peacebuilding, the discussion to date on both the meanings and the practices of local ownership in peacebuilding contexts remains underdeveloped. This article is therefore an effort to add substance to the local ownership debate, and outlines two forms of peacebuilding—liberal and communitarian—which contain markedly different assumptions concerning the role of local actors in peacebuilding processes. Ultimately, the article suggests that the search for ways to operationalize local ownership principles remains one of the key challenges of contemporary peacebuilding, and outlines a vision of peacebuilding as cultural exchange as a way forward.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.015
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0140.005
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it