Third-Party Mediation in Sri Lanka’s Peace Attempts: A Study on the Role of Norwegian Mediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional and international mediation by third parties in Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict have had diverse impacts on the country’s political scene at various times. India spearheaded a significant regional mediation following the July 1983 pogrom against minority Tamils. An international mediation effort by a third party was initiated in 2000, with Norway playing the role of facilitator. Both of these attempts to resolve Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict, which were taken to bring an end to the intense and continued violence, have had mixed outcomes. In particular, Norway’s initiative to bring an end to the conflict with international facilitation was taken in the backdrop of the changed world order that prevailed after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. It is against this backdrop; this article attempts to examine the contributions made by Norway towards the resolution of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. The major finding shows that Norwegian initiative fell into fail after a period and the armed insurgency did not come to an end until 2009. In May 2009, the government forces defeated the LTTE militarily and declared the war victory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".