MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400361514 · doi:10.1080/17502977.2024.2362000

Exclusionary Inclusion: The Unforeseen Consequences of Norm Promotion in Myanmar’s Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement Process

2024· article· en· W4400361514 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intervention and Statebuilding · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsNorm (philosophy)Inclusion (mineral)Political sciencePromotion (chess)Process (computing)Development economicsSociologyComputer scienceGender studiesLawEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What happens when the promotion of ‘inclusive peace’ creates an exclusionary negotiated settlement? Through analysing the promotion of inclusion in Myanmar's Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) negotiations that took place from 2011–15, I challenge claims in peace research that the more inclusive a peace process is, the more effective the outcome. Through discussing how the promotion of the inclusivity norm to the negotiating parties had unintended negative effects on the outcome of the process, namely excluding certain armed groups and crowding out civil society actors, I argue against assuming that integrating salient peacemaking norms always result in effective outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it