Building Peace in Northern Ireland: Hopes for the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, over 2 billion Euros have been poured into Northern Ireland for peacebuilding. This article presents the hopes and experiences of workers in CSOs funded by either or both funds, development officers, and civil servants employed by the funders. They confirm that peacebuilding and reconciliation projects funded by the European Union (EU) Peace and Reconciliation Fund and the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) have positively contributed to the peace process in Northern Ireland. Civil Society Organizational (CSO) projects support peacebuilding, reconciliation, and greater cooperation between the Protestant and Catholic communities. This study explored the perceptions of 120 respondents working with these funders. They indicated that designated peacebuilding funding promotes bridging, needs to be balanced, and is important to building the peace dividend and that local knowledge, practices, and skillsets should be built into the funding process. The politics of post-Brexit Northern Ireland means that understanding how to best fund peacebuilding and reconciliation is critical. At time of writing, tensions have risen.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".