Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conflict analysis is an essential component of designing and implementing peacebuilding action because it focuses on making sense of the situations where a peacebuilding action or intervention is desired. This article presents the results of an exploratory study based on semi‐structured interviews with 20 practitioners from 19 countries on four continents. Participants represented diverse organizations working on peacebuilding projects in conflict‐affected locations. The study focused on how participants (peacebuilding practitioners) gather and make sense of data (information) about the situations they face so they can make decisions for program design and implementation. Topics addressed by the study's participants included practice trends, methods of data collection and analysis, difficulties in gathering and assessing data, theories of change, and program or project assessment. The study concludes that the practitioners who participated mainly use informal methods to collect and make sense of data and do not make use of systematic approaches to conflict analysis.
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 | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".