Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that if the PBC and the PBSO are to avoid longterm institutional decline, they will, over the next five to ten years, need to position themselves to play new roles -in terms of mandate, resources, procedures, and partnerships.Four potential roles are discussed.First, the PBA could seek to lead an integrated approach to conflict prevention -not just lessening the risks of war recurring in countries 'emerging from conflict,' but also reducing the chances of an initial outbreak in countries facing an array of destabilizing forces.Second, the PBA could occupy a more central niche in the stabilization and recovery planning process by managing an otherwise-decentralized international civilian-response capacity.Third, the PBA could be tasked with ensuring that donors and aid-receiving post-conflict states live up to commitments found in country-specific peacebuilding 'compacts,' which must be arrived at through a more streamlined process.And, fourth, the PBA's work plan could be tied to the process by which countries 'graduate' from the Security Council's agenda (as distinct from the PBC's agenda, where such countries may remain for a longer period).The paper identifies the pedigree of all four proposals, which have surfaced from time to time, and assesses the chances that future circumstances might prove more conducive to their enactment.1 For instance, Thomas J. Biersteker, 'Prospects for the UN Peacebuilding Commission,' Disarmament Forum (2007), pp.37-44; and Report on the Stanley Foundation Conference, 'Peacebuilding Following Conflict,' New Paltz, New York, June 19-21 2009 (mimeo).
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".