Peace is on the Ballot: The Politicization of the Colombian Peace Talks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 2nd 2016, Colombian voters rejected a referendum on the peace agreement between the federal government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Contrary to most advance polling and preliminary estimates in national and international news media, the “No” vote won by a tight margin, thus rejecting a peace deal that would have brought an end to the longest civil war in the Western hemisphere. This paper examines the intersections of civil society and the political groups most actively involved in the peace process in Colombia, beginning in the 1980s and leading to the 2016 referendum. The findings are two-fold: first, civil society has played an integral role in both the endurance and the hindrance of the peace process from its beginnings in 1980s up to the present day, through electoral support of independent candidates and by mobilization of special interest groups. Second, the 2016 referendum results share exceptional demographic and geographic correlations with the results of the 2014 presidential election. This suggests the peace referendum was highly politicized and split along the lines of partisanship at the highest echelons of Colombian democracy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".