Security promotion in fragile states: can local meet national?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The connection between community security and Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) is a largely omitted topic in most current policy approaches and is relatively unexplored in both academic and policy literature.The few available reports indicate that community security and community-based DDR initiatives have something to offer and can not only complement state-centred approaches, but may even substitute them when the state is unable, unwilling or unavailable to carry out its tasks.For instance, in many conflict and post-conflict settings, local-level security initiatives provide local forms of protection or security zones, or involve communities in disarmament and reintegration or the monitoring thereof.They may further act as interlocutors between vulnerable populations and formal and non-state security actors.This report reviews the existing literature on the link between community security and DDR processes.It was produced by the working group Community Security and Community-based DDR in Fragile States that is part of the Peace Security and Development (PSD) network.This working group has three main objectives.The first objective is to examine the current state of affairs with regard to community security and DDR policies and programmes, whether initiated from above by state or multilateral agencies or from below by NGOs and communities.This is the main focus of this report, and also constitutes the first phase of the research project.The second objective is to design context-specific approaches for community-based DDR that can enhance the human security of populations affected by conflict and can help prevent the proliferation of (small) arms (and light weapons).While the present report intends to provide a first impetus to this, follow-up research and field work will be undertaken in four countries -Burundi, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan.The third objective is the sharing and dissemination of the results to relevant audiences, both while the study is ongoing and after the completion of the work. Community SecuritySecurity is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder: it depends on the perceptions individuals and communities have of their security.Community security is defined to constitute both an end state -in which communities feel secure from threats exerted by violent conflict, arms proliferation, crime, and a lack of protection or direct threat by the state -and a process -in which communities participate in identifying and prioritizing their security needs as well as appropriate responses to meet these needs.Various ways can be identified in which communities organize their own security, such as traditional systems and peace committees, Gun-Free Zones or community-based policing.Communities find these ways to provide for their own security sometimes with, but also without outside help.Initiatives like these may provide entry points for DDR programmes to become more community-based and hence more sustainable from a community security perspective.However, little literature exists about community security and more research is necessary. 3.3.4.Part of Broader Peacebuilding.............
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".