Colonialism and Peace and Conflict Studies
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
The nature of colonialism is examined in this comparison of British colonial policy in Ireland and Canada toward Indigenous people. The histories and realities of Indigenous peoples’ experiences of colonizing violence are not adequately addressed by the dominant approaches of the democratic peace theory’s universalist neoliberal technocratic values, expectations, and assumptions (see Mac Ginty, 2013). PACS scholars and practitioners need new interpretive frames to make sense of the impact and consequences of colonialism and the intent of genocidal destruction across different colonial contexts in order to understand the deep roots of conflict (economic exploitation, internalization of oppression, racist ideology), and how we should go about critical and emancipatory peace building, theory building, and practice. The study of colonialism is required to understand conflict milieus characterized by structural violence in order to create a justpeace (see Lederach, 1997) that includes restorative and reconciliatory processes, and recognition of local people’s resilience and resistance to structural violence and social injustice (see Chandler, 2017).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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