Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kimberley Process is a multi-stakeholder initiative created in 2003 to address the issue of conflict diamonds, also called blood diamonds. This study examines the extent to which NGOs can still play a role in the Kimberley Process. In the early 2000s, NGOs played a significant part in raising awareness about conflict diamonds; they pushed governments and the diamond industry to take action. Fifteen years later, the situation is very different. Several NGOs have decided to leave the initiative, and the Civil Society Coalition decided to boycott the Kimberley Process in 2011 and 2016. This graduate thesis looks at the internal and external factors to understand the reasons why the situation has deteriorated over the past few years and the extent to which it constrains the ability of the Civil Society Coalition to act as expert, legitimizer and watchdog. This analysis is based on the examination of the official documents of the Kimberley Process, interviews with NGOs, and reports of Global Witness, Partnership Africa Canada and Human Rights Watch. It finds that the departure of Global Witness and other experienced international NGOs has undermined the expertise of the Civil Society Coalition. Most current members of the Civil Society Coalition face a lack of financial resources and do not have a strong background in conflict diamonds, which prevents them from collecting reliable and detailed information. This, in turn, contributes to discrediting the Civil Society Coalition in terms of how they are perceived by the other parties involved in the Kimberley Process and prevents them from being an active watchdog in the industry. If the Civil Society Coalition wants to play a role in the Kimberley Process, it will need to change the mix of NGOs included in the certification scheme and collaborate with experienced NGOs that can enhance its expertise.
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 | 0.051 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".