Making Maps to Make Peace: Geospatial Technology as a Tool for UN Peacekeeping
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
This article analyses how United Nations peacekeeping operations are harnessing geospatial technology, including high-resolution satellite imagery and geographic information systems (GIS), in the furtherance of peace and security. We argue that it is strengthening the ability of peacekeepers to accomplish their mandated tasks, including the demarcation of international boundaries, support for the negotiation of peace agreements, stabilization, the protection of civilians, human rights monitoring, electoral assistance, support for the extension of state authority and the provision of humanitarian assistance. However, it remains to be seen how and to what extent UN peacekeeping can continue to grow and expand its geospatial capabilities. We identify several challenges of an operational and political nature that tend to impede its utilization. A key question in this regard is whether politics will prevent peacekeepers from exploiting recent advances in geospatial technology. We conclude and synthesize our argument by developing a simplified framework for determining when and under what conditions peacekeepers can effectively harness geospatial technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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