Araştırma Makalesi

Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics

Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2 30 Haziran 2026
PDF İndir
EN TR

Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics

Öz

Predicting the emergence of armed conflicts has long been a subject of debate in the social sciences. Numerous studies have shown that structural factors such as state capacity, economic fragility, and institutional inequality influence the risk of conflict. However, the predictive performance of these indicators is often not systematically tested. This study examines the ability of structural fragility indicators to distinguish periods of high-death-toll conflict within a prospective classification framework. The analysis combines structural indicators included in the Fragile States Index with death tolls derived from ACLED event data. The dependent variable is defined as a binary indicator of whether a country experiences at least 25 conflict-related deaths in the following year. To prevent temporal information leakage and obtain a more realistic assessment, a rolling prediction design with an expanding training window was employed instead of the random data-splitting method. The Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) algorithm, which has high capacity to capture nonlinear relationships, was preferred for classification. The findings indicate that structural fragility indicators exhibit strong discriminatory performance in identifying country-year observations that exceed the high-fatality threshold. The average ROC-AUC value in the rolling evaluation results is approximately 0.92. However, the prediction performance is not entirely constant over time. Limited weakening in both discriminatory power and probability calibration occurs in some periods. This indicates that structural indicators convey a significant signal of conflict risk, but predictive success is not independent of the temporal context. The study contributes to the conflict prediction literature by demonstrating that variables with strong explanatory power do not necessarily yield stable predictive performance over time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Poverty, Armed Conflict, Conflict Prediction, Machine Learning, Fragility

Kaynakça

  1. ACLED. (2025). ACLED data. Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. https://acleddata.com/data/
  2. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  3. Brier, G. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2
  4. Cederman, L. E., Weidmann, N. B., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2011). Horizontal inequalities and ethnonationalist civil war: A global comparison. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 478-495. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000207
  5. Chiba, D., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2017). The shape of things to come? Expanding the inequality and grievance model for civil war forecasts with event data. Journal of Peace Research, 54(2), 275-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316684192
  6. Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563-595. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpf064
  7. Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000534
  8. Fragile States Index. (2025). Fragile States Index. The Fund for Peace. https://fragilestatesindex.org/
  9. Gleditsch, N. P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M., & Strand, H. (2002). Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39(5), 615-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039005007
  10. Goldstone, J. A., Bates, R. H., Epstein, D. L., Gurr, T. R., Lustik, M. B., Marshall, M. G., Ulfelder, J., & Woodward, M. (2010). A global model for forecasting political instability. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 190-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00426.x

Kaynak Göster

APA
Akar, C. (2026). Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(2), 924-945. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1716071
AMA
1.Akar C. Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics. itobiad. 2026;15(2):924-945. doi:10.15869/itobiad.1716071
Chicago
Akar, Caglar. 2026. “Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics”. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 15 (2): 924-45. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1716071.
EndNote
Akar C (01 Haziran 2026) Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 15 2 924–945.
IEEE
[1]C. Akar, “Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics”, itobiad, c. 15, sy 2, ss. 924–945, Haz. 2026, doi: 10.15869/itobiad.1716071.
ISNAD
Akar, Caglar. “Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics”. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 15/2 (01 Haziran 2026): 924-945. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1716071.
JAMA
1.Akar C. Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics. itobiad. 2026;15:924–945.
MLA
Akar, Caglar. “Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics”. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, c. 15, sy 2, Haziran 2026, ss. 924-45, doi:10.15869/itobiad.1716071.
Vancouver
1.Caglar Akar. Classification of High-Fatality Conflict Countries by Fragility Metrics. itobiad. 01 Haziran 2026;15(2):924-45. doi:10.15869/itobiad.1716071