Review of Civilian Experience in Conflict Situation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing concern among scholars on how the battlefield of conflict/wars have shifted to civilian populated areas causing huge pain and loss, previous studies have shown that civilians today have become entangled in a precarious situation where conflicts rage forcing them to either take charge of their fate or risk living in continuous fear of being used as scape-goats by either of the parties in conflict. This paper strife’s to bring to fore some of the challenges faced by civilians in conflict. Also, by reflecting on previous studies, room will be created for a prompt analysis of what civilians go through in the event of an impending conflict. Using existent literature, previous studies and reports from international organizations and actors in the field of conflict management, the paper highlight the nature, impact and experiences related to conflict and how these processes undermine the realization of basic human needs for survival among civilians. Borrowing from the Human Needs theory, the paper concludes that the realization of human potentials will not be attainable unless the need for security and safety is guaranteed. Failure to protect civilians in need of protection will ultimately put the faith of the people in their hands and thus promote the proliferation of light arms which has the potential for misuse and further endangering the civilian population.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".