Conflict Dynamics and Obstacles to Peace in the Lake Chad Basin: Analysis and Perspectives for a Positive Dynamic of Peace.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recurrence of conflicts in the Lake Chad basin positions this region in the high-risk zone of the African Sahel, described by researchers of the Center of Progress as “arc of tension”. Focusing on the southern shore of the lake, this article is based on analyses of the documentary content of scientific works dealing with conflicts in the Lake Chad basin, the results of research and scientific articles also devoted to the same issues, and empirical data was collected from community members (through personal interviews) in order to understand the process of renewal of conflict dynamics in this ecological basin. It also draws on the work of Thomas Homer-Dixon and his Toronto research group to demonstrate that the resurgence of conflict in this basin is attributable to the mismatch between the need for vital resources and the supply, as well as to the inadequacy of national and community instruments for regulating natural resources. The article attempts to answer the following questions: what explains the recurrence of conflicts in the Lake Chad basin? And what are the obstacles to peace in this area? Firstly, it shows how the activities of cross-border criminals, the Islamist sect (Boko Haram) and the scarcity of natural resources are fueling the process of renewed conflict dynamics in the Lake Chad Basin. It then identifies the factors blocking peace in this ecological basin, in particular the difficulty of access to land and natural resources, the scarcity of economic resources, the competition between social groups for access to and control of resources, and the system for managing these resources. Finally, as a way out of the conflicts circle in this region, the article proposes an environmental mediation approach based on the promotion of incentive mechanisms for the sustainable and concerted management of natural resources and the creation of a community of interests to strengthen peaceful cohabitation between peoples, with the aim of building a positive dynamic of peace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".