MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099859788 · doi:10.1080/02508060.2015.1012284

The UN Peacebuilding Commission and the potential of water in post-conflict development, governance and reconciliation

2015· article· en· W2099859788 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstMcGill UniversityDepartment for International DevelopmentUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsPeacebuildingCommissionCorporate governancePolitical scienceWater developmentPublic administrationEnvironmental planningLawEnvironmental scienceWater resourcesManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the extent to which the UN Peacebuilding Commission (UNPBC) has considered the ‘peacebuilding potential of water’. Based on an analysis of documentation of 2006–14, it is argued that the UNPBC has paid significant attention to the role of water in post-conflict development, governance and reconciliation. However, given the UNPBC’s overall work output, the consideration that water has received as a peace-building tool should not be overstated. While a stronger integration of water into peace-building would be desirable in principle, decisions must be made on a country-by-country basis, taking into account peace-building priorities, local context and availability of donor support.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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