Une approche des groupes armes communautaires en Afrique subsaharienne : Enseignements tires et mesures de la reussite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’augmentation de la prévalence des groupes armés communautaires ou GAC (community-based armed groups ou CBAGs) en Afrique subsaharienne fait craindre qu’ils posent un défi croissant aux gouvernements et aux citoyens de la région. Ce document cartographie la manière dont les différents acteurs intervenants (communautés, gouvernements, organisations de la société civile, agences humanitaires et de développement et fournisseurs de sécurité) ont abordé les défis posés par les GAC et comment mesurer au mieux le succès de ces interventions. La cartographie des approches, l’analyse des enseignements tirés et l’identification des facteurs de réussite contribueront à une compréhension empirique plus approfondie des forces et des lacunes des réponses actuelles aux GAC, ce qui alimentera l’élaboration de pratiques et de politiques plus efficaces et appropriées.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".