Bibliographic record
Abstract
A partir de uma confluência entre história, sociologia e antropologia, o objetivo deste artigo é analisar a guerra civil angolana (1975-2002) como uma construção política responsável por uma estratégia econômica e social que continua até hoje naquele país. A Justiça e o direito, tanto nacional angolano quanto internacional, desempenham papeis muito discretos nesse processo, o que nos leva a propor como abordagem alternativa a ideia de socialidade “vindicatória“ a fim de repensar os limites epistemológicos das tradições criminológicas para observar e estudar um objeto quase ignorado pela criminologia, o da violência política em tempos de guerra. Partant d'une perspective historique, la guerre civile angolaise de 1975 à 2002 est analysée comme une construction politique débouchant sur une stratégie économique et sociale qui se poursuit jusqu'à aujourd'hui. La justice et le droit au niveau tant national qu'international jouent un rôle effacé, ce qui devrait nous conduire à explorer une approche de socialité «vindicatoire» comme alternative et à repenser les limites épistémologiques des traditions criminologiques pour observer et étudier un objet presque ignoré par la criminologie.Mots-clé: Angola, conflit, guerre, histoire, socialité 'vindicatoire'The aim of the article Political Violence and the War in Angola is to analyze the Angolan civil war (1975-2002) from an historical perspective as a political construction leading to an economic and social strategy that goes on till today. National and international justice and law play a very inconspicuous role. An alternative to this situation would be to turn and explore a more “vindicatory” sociality approach. This should drive us to rethink the epistemological limits of criminological traditions to observe and study armed conflict, as war is almost ignored as an object of study in criminology.Keywords: Angola, conflict, war, history, ‘vindicatory' sociality
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".