Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Palgrave Research in Peace Studies series will function as a platform for collaboration, ideation, and to promote critical peace studies through publications.Peace studies should be understood as a nontraditional academic field that is multidisciplinary and that frequently bridges the academic-practitioner gap.Peace studies serve as analytical and pedagogical tools in which conflicts are studied to give new perspectives to their causes and mechanisms for resolution.Peace studies furthermore explore strategies for preventing, resolving, and recovering from conflict, armed or otherwise.This includes cessation of armed violence, demilitarization and repatriation; disarmament and reintegration and rehabilitation of ex-combatants in the context of comprehensive peace accords; capacity building and development of resilience in communities to address post-conflict instability; restorative justice, building good governance to prevent (or end) cyclical violence-structural and/ or direct.Areas of research range from systems approaches to conflict analysis, conflict-sensitive approaches to conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation, facilitation, human rights, development, and building early warning mechanisms.Furthermore, as much of peace studies literature is western-centric, from a critical perspective, this series will aim at including ideas, philosophies, and theoretical frameworks from other regions of the world, particularly Asia, South/Central America, and Africa/Middle East.The series will be inclusive of academically valid voices that are not commonly presented in western discourses, while simultaneously maintaining rigorous academic standards.We aim to adapt a critical perspective in moving beyond a Peace Studies discourse dominated by western thinking.Peace studies thus cover a wide spectrum; constructivist and/or empirical.Still, a central tenet of the series will be following Johan Galtung's idea of 'Peace by Peaceful Means,' while not disregarding peace by non-peaceful means.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".