Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) in Community Development: A Case Study from Mozambique
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peace and conflict impact assessment (PCIA) is a tool that potentially can improve the quality of development work in conflict zones. PCIA’s conceptual strengths and weaknesses are much debated but few studies to date have examined its use in practice. For this article, PCIA was used to structure research on conflict and peace dynamics in post-war Mozambique. The findings address both local peace-building outcomes and the usefulness of PCIA. PCIA functioned well as a tool for situational analysis, richly documenting sources of conflicts, competing claims over resources and rights, and problematic policies on the part of development organisations, government and private actors. Difficulties associated with the gathering of information stemmed from systemic power differentials between ‘researchers’ and ‘respondents’, and intensive demands on time and resources. The article concludes that PCIA, if used flexibly and in dialogue with local people, could prove a valuable complement to existing assessment tools in conflict areas.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it