MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134905186 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18967509

ICT-mediated Conflict Resolution in Côte d'Ivoire: Success Rates and Reintegration Outcomes

2012· article· en· W7134905186 on OpenAlexaff
Kamara Diallo, Soumanou Toure, Abdoulaye Diabré, Guenguè Zinsou

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConflict resolutionInformation and Communications TechnologyFocus groupQualitative researchQualitative propertyLiteracyQualitative analysisDigital literacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for conflict resolution has gained traction in various regions, including post-conflict zones such as Côte d'Ivoire. However, the efficacy and impact of these initiatives on community reintegration remain underexplored. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative data from surveys with qualitative insights from interviews and focus groups to provide a comprehensive analysis of the conflict resolution initiatives in Côte d'Ivoire. Analysis revealed that approximately 70% of participants reported significant improvements in communication channels post-intervention. However, challenges related to infrastructure accessibility posed a barrier to full integration for 30% of surveyed communities. While ICT-mediated conflict resolution efforts show promise in facilitating dialogue and community healing, there is room for improvement in ensuring equitable access to these technologies across all regions. Further research should focus on developing sustainable ICT infrastructure solutions and enhancing user-friendly platforms to support broader reintegration outcomes. Policy recommendations include fostering public-private partnerships and investing in digital literacy programmes. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207