Data for peace: how novel data sources and technology can enhance peace?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this editorial, we draw insights from a special collection of peer-reviewed papers investigating how new data sources and technology can enhance peace. The collection examines local and global practices that strive towards positive peace through the responsible use of frontier technologies. In particular, the articles of the collection illustrate how advanced techniques—including machine learning, network analysis, specialised text classifiers, and large-scale predictive analytics—can deepen our understanding of conflict dynamics by revealing subtle interdependencies and patterns. Others assess innovative approaches reinterpreting peace as a relational phenomenon. Collectively, they assess ethical, technical, and governance challenges while advocating balanced frameworks that ensure accountability alongside innovation. The collection offers a practical roadmap for integrating technical tools into peacebuilding to foster resilient societies and non-violent conflict transformations.
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 | 0.029 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".