Survivals and Aversions of Colombian Revolutionaries Strategic Preferences of Guerrilla Groups Faced with the Possibility of Negotiating Peace
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
Why did certain Colombian armed groups such as the M-19, the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), the Workers’ Revolutionary Party (PRT) and the Socialist Renovation Current (CRS) decide to sign a peace agreement while others, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) refused to do so? Based on a historical analysis of the political behavior of these armed groups, this essay shows that willingness to negotiate depends, at least partly, on the belligerents’ extremism or modera tion, which varies as a function of the balance of power between ‘hardliners’ and ‘softlin ers’ (distribution of political, economic, and strategic resources) within each collective actor. The essay identifies four strategic choices: recognition of the adversary, acceptance of negotiation as a valid political tool for conflict resolution, calls for defining the rules of peace negotiations, and sending costly signals in favor of peace, which help to distinguish a moderate from an extremist. The essay concludes that the use of political violence is not necessarily an indicator of extremism.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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