Rethinking the role of community media in conflict transformation and peacebuilding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Whereas much has been written about the role community media plays in peacebuilding, emphasis is often put on participatory media models as key determinants of peace or conflict sustainability. Little is known, however, about the conditions under which such media increase or impede peace efforts due to the complex nature of conflict. Moreover, how, when, and by whom such media can be tailored to offer favorable conditions for peacebuilding at the community level remain largely unanswered questions. This article draws from Howard's (An Operational Framework for Media and Peacebuilding, IMPACS, 2002) typology of media interventions, issue‐framing framework, and conflict transformation approach to probe the prospects of community media agency in peacebuilding at the community level. It argues that the way conflict narratives are produced, negotiated, and consumed across time and space is what provides individuals or groups with incentives for conflict or trade‐offs for peace irrespective of the stage at which a given conflict manifests itself. Overall, the reflections presented are conceptual and are intended to generate theoretical and methodological discussions around the role of community media in conflict transformation and peacebuilding at the community level.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".