Survivals and Aversions of Colombian Revolutionaries Strategic Preferences of Guerrilla Groups Faced with the Possibility of Negotiating Peace
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".