Urban Colombian youths' perspectives on the armed conflict and possibilities for ways forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the aftermath of intractable armed conflict, adolescents can play a critical role in the process of reconciliation and the construction of a culture of peace. The meanings they construct about these processes are a core aspect of their engagement (or lack thereof) in peace‐building initiatives. This study sought to document adolescents' perspectives on the Colombian armed conflict and the 2016 peace treaty, as well as their preferred resolutions to move forward after decades of harm and division. We interviewed 77 adolescents (39 girls, 38 boys) ranging from ages 14 to 19 years (M = 16.49, SD = .95) from two public schools in Bogotá, Colombia. We asked youth open‐ended questions about the history of the armed conflict, their position toward the peace accord, and their proposed optimal resolutions to address harms committed by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia—Ejército del Pueblo (FARC). Using thematic analysis, we identified three overall themes in adolescents' responses: (1) cynicism toward peace and desires for retribution, (2) improving the lives of those they thought were most impacted, and (3) restoring relationships and ending cycles of violence. We discuss the implications of our findings for psychological scholarship, peace education, and politics of reconciliation in light of Colombia's current political and social climate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".