Conflict Management: The Nigerian Government’s Strategies and the Question of Enduring Peace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article x-rayed the conflict management strategies that Nigerian government adopted in Odi and the larger Niger Delta crises. We undertook extensive review of literature related to these two conflict situations to determine which of these strategies - the use of force or the granting of amnesty worked better for the benefit of Nigeria. It was observed that the use of force to manage the Niger Delta imbroglios has always escalated the conflict. On the other hand, the granting of amnesty presented a better platform for managing the conflict and has the potential of resolving the Niger Delta crises if vigorously and holistically pursued. Key recommendations were that: the root cause(s) of conflict should be well established to know the strategy(ies) to use in managing it; the managers of conflict should not rush and employ force to manage any conflict; there should always be active channels for effective communication between the conflicting parties and equitable, just socio-political environment should always be created to forestall the emergence of conflict, leaders should always be proactive on conflict issues through effective communication and dialogue not until when there is a breakdown of law and order.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".