Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of a new wave of violence in Sri Lanka and the classification by numerous Western countries of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as a terrorist organisation, many wonder if the agreement mediated by Norway between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE has any long-term chance of success. This review will analyse the different strategies and proposals elaborated in previous agreements and peace talks designed to end the conflict between the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil minority, with the purpose of identifying whether the current ceasefire agreement has a chance of lasting and leading to a peaceful and durable resolution of the conflict. The changing nature of the Tamils' requests and the government's proposals from the independence of Ceylon until the present will be considered, along with the causes of their evolution, the reasons why certain proposals were accepted or rejected, and the major obstacles preventing a successful agreement from being reached. The study of the 1957, 1965, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1995 failing agreements, as well as the changing context in which they were abandoned or modified, will lead to the conclusion that the United Nations should take on a bigger role in the peace process if it wants the ceasefire to be successfully implemented and lead to a permanent peace. The United Nations could enhance its role by pressuring both sides to increase the pace and the commitment to negotiation, by accepting to monitor the ceasefire, or by announcing retribution for both sides in case of non-compliance. In the absence of UN involvement, the current ceasefire will not only have little chance of evolving into long-lasting peace for Sri Lanka, but could also exacerbate the conflict by allowing both parties to regroup and increase their fighting capabilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
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".