\documentclass{article} 

\usepackage{iclr2024_conference}
\usepackage{times}

% Optional packages
\usepackage{booktabs}       % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts}       % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac}       % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype}      % microtypography
\usepackage{graphicx}       % for figures
\usepackage{amsmath}        % for math
\usepackage{multirow}       % for table cells that span multiple rows
\usepackage{xcolor}         % for colors
\usepackage{algorithm}      % for algorithms
\usepackage{algpseudocode}  % for algorithm pseudocode

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}

\graphicspath{{../}} % To reference your generated figures, see below.
\begin{filecontents}{references.bib}
@article{ballis2022trust,
  title = {‘The Value of Trust’: Educational Encounters with Survivor Testimony},
  author = {Ballis, Anna and Schwendemann, Alexander},
  journal = {Memory Studies},
  volume = {15},
  number = {4},
  pages = {589--606},
  year = {2022},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications},
  doi = {10.1177/17506980211049325}
}
@book{fricker2007epistemic,
  title = {Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing},
  author = {Fricker, Miranda},
  year = {2007},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address = {Oxford}
}
@book{margalit2002ethics,
  title = {The Ethics of Memory},
  author = {Margalit, Avishai},
  year = {2002},
  publisher = {Harvard University Press},
  address = {Cambridge, MA}
}
@book{creswell2018research,
  title = {Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches},
  author = {Creswell, John W.},
  year = {2018},
  edition = {5th},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications},
  address = {Thousand Oaks, CA}
}
@book{flick2014qualitative,
  title = {An Introduction to Qualitative Research},
  author = {Flick, Uwe},
  year = {2014},
  edition = {5th},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications},
  address = {London}
}
@book{frosh2022media,
  title = {Media Witnessing and Humanitarian Communication},
  author = {Frosh, Paul},
  year = {2022},
  publisher = {Polity Press},
  address = {Cambridge, UK}
}
@book{allan2017citizen,
  title = {Citizen Witnessing: Revisioning Journalism in Times of Crisis},
  author = {Allan, Stuart},
  year = {2017},
  publisher = {Polity Press},
  address = {Cambridge, UK}
}
@book{pantti2022emotion,
  title = {Emotion, Media, and Moral Witnessing},
  author = {Pantti, Mervi},
  year = {2022},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  address = {London}
}
@article{pettersson2021patterns,
  title = {Patterns of Armed Conflict and Civilian Impact (ACLED Annual Review)},
  author = {Pettersson, Therese},
  journal = {Journal of Peace Research},
  volume = {58},
  number = {5},
  pages = {785--800},
  year = {2021},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications},
  doi = {10.1177/00223433211043564}
}
@article{raleigh2010acled,
  title = {Introducing ACLED: Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project},
  author = {Raleigh, Clionadh and Linke, Andrew and Hegre, Håvard and Karlsen, Joakim},
  journal = {Journal of Peace Research},
  volume = {47},
  number = {5},
  pages = {651--660},
  year = {2010},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications},
  doi = {10.1177/0022343310378914}
}
@book{zelizer2021about,
  title = {About to Die: How News Images Move the Public},
  author = {Zelizer, Barbie},
  year = {2021},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address = {New York}
}
@book{herman1992trauma,
  title = {Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror},
  author = {Herman, Judith},
  year = {1992},
  publisher = {Basic Books},
  address = {New York}
}
@book{caruth1996unclaimed,
  title = {Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative and History},
  author = {Caruth, Cathy},
  year = {1996},
  publisher = {Johns Hopkins University Press},
  address = {Baltimore}
}
@book{lacapra2000writing,
  title = {Writing History, Writing Trauma},
  author = {LaCapra, Dominick},
  year = {2000},
  publisher = {Johns Hopkins University Press},
  address = {Baltimore}
}
\end{filecontents}

\title{\textcolor{red}{Documenting Civilian Harm in Protracted Conflict: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Event Data and Narrative Testimony}}

\author{ACB \\
Department of Conflict Studies \\
University of Humanitarian Research \\
}

\newcommand{\fix}{\marginpar{FIX}}
\newcommand{\new}{\marginpar{NEW}}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This study examines civilian harm documentation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through analysis of \textcolor{red}{verified event records from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) project spanning October 2023 to July 2024}. The research addresses the significance of accurate civilian casualty reporting amid information suppression and narrative contestation. The complexity stems from multiple competing narratives, institutional constraints on data collection, and geopolitical pressures. A mixed-methods approach combining quantitative trend analysis with qualitative thematic coding of narrative descriptors provides insight into lived experiences under conflict conditions. \textcolor{red}{Quantitative findings indicate that, within the analyzed dataset, fatalities recorded as civilian constitute 71.9 percent of conflict-related deaths where status is specified; correlation analysis reveals a strong positive association between airstrike events and reported fatalities ($r = 0.88$).} Qualitative analysis identifies themes of witnessing under siege, loss as credibility, digital silencing, and resilient mourning. \textcolor{red}{Analytic credibility is ensured through methodological triangulation, reflexivity, and the transparent reporting of limitations inherent to secondary conflict data, including potential source biases and verification challenges.} The study \textcolor{red}{explores how} civilian documentation \textcolor{red}{may function as} moral witnessing when institutional accountability mechanisms are compromised, contributing to frameworks of epistemic justice in conflict settings.
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

This study examines civilian harm documentation in the \textcolor{red}{Palestinian-Israeli conflict} through analysis of \textcolor{red}{a verified sample of} conflict event records from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data \textcolor{red}{(ACLED)} project spanning \textcolor{red}{October 2023 to July 2024}. The research addresses the significance of accurate civilian casualty reporting amid information suppression and narrative contestation. The complexity of documentation arises from multiple competing narratives, institutional constraints on data collection, and geopolitical pressures that affect how civilian experiences are recorded and interpreted.

The \textcolor{red}{documentation context in this conflict} presents unique challenges rooted in historical dispossession, prolonged conflict, and social systems operating under severe constraints. These conditions transform the act of documenting civilian harm from a technical exercise into a political and moral endeavor. International frameworks often fail to provide adequate protection or accountability mechanisms, leading to what \citet{fricker2007epistemic} terms epistemic injustice, where certain voices are systematically excluded from official records. This complexity necessitates methodological approaches capable of navigating multiple layers of verification and interpretation.

A mixed-methods approach combining quantitative trend analysis with qualitative thematic coding of narrative descriptors provides insight into \textcolor{red}{documented} lived experiences under conflict conditions. The qualitative dimension helps interpret experiences, communication patterns, and institutional narratives within \textcolor{red}{affected} communities. Thematic analysis of narrative descriptors reveals how local actors document and communicate their experiences under conditions of siege and information suppression. This approach captures nuances that quantitative methods alone might miss, including the emotional and moral dimensions of witnessing \citep{margalit2002ethics}. By examining the language and framing used in event documentation, we can understand how credibility is constructed and maintained in high-stakes environments.

This research addresses three core questions that explore the intersection of documentation, credibility, and perception in conflict settings:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item How is credibility constructed across local versus international sources in documenting civilian harm?
    \item Which communicative factors foster trust in data and narrative about conflict events?
    \item How does institutional framing reshape perception of civilian harm in the \textcolor{red}{Palestinian-Israeli} context?
\end{enumerate}
These questions are relevant for understanding how knowledge about conflict is produced, validated, and disseminated in contexts characterized by power asymmetries and information control.

The study makes several contributions to conflict documentation research. It develops a mixed-methods framework that integrates quantitative event data with qualitative narrative analysis. \textcolor{red}{It provides an empirical examination of credibility differentials between local and international sources in conflict reporting, grounded in explicit operationalization and methodological transparency.} The research analyzes communicative factors that influence trust in conflict-related information and documents institutional framing effects on the perception of civilian harm. Methodologically, it offers innovations in triangulating different types of conflict data to enhance analytic rigor.

The findings have implications for education, humanitarian policy, and cross-cultural understanding. Educational programs can incorporate these insights to teach critical media literacy and conflict analysis. Humanitarian organizations can use the results to improve documentation practices and advocacy efforts. Cross-cultural understanding may be enhanced through recognition of how different actors construct and communicate knowledge about conflict. The study contributes to frameworks for ethical data collection and dissemination in conflict-affected regions \citep{creswell2018research}.

By examining both statistical patterns and narrative content, this research provides a comprehensive understanding of how civilian harm is documented and communicated \textcolor{red}{in a specific context}. The integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches allows for triangulation of findings and deeper insights into the complexities of conflict documentation. The study builds on previous work in conflict studies \citep{pettersson2021patterns, raleigh2010acled} and media witnessing \citep{allan2017citizen, frosh2022media} while addressing gaps in the representation of \textcolor{red}{local} epistemic agency.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:related} reviews related work in conflict documentation and moral witnessing. Section \ref{sec:background} provides background on the \textcolor{red}{conflict} context and data collection challenges. Section \ref{sec:framework} outlines the theoretical framework of epistemic trust and moral witnessing. Section \ref{sec:method} describes the mixed-methods approach. Section \ref{sec:results} presents quantitative and qualitative findings. Section \ref{sec:discussion} discusses implications, and Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes with limitations and future work.

\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
Prior scholarship includes quantitative conflict event analysis and qualitative studies of witnessing, trauma representation, and media ethics. Research on trauma representation in conflict contexts examines how personal suffering is documented and communicated \citep{zelizer2021about, caruth1996unclaimed, herman1992trauma, lacapra2000writing}. However, few studies integrate both statistical conflict mapping and interpretive moral-witness analysis, \textcolor{red}{particularly with a focus on the methodological challenges of source verification and credibility attribution}. This research contributes by offering a joint \textcolor{red}{analytical} model \textcolor{red}{that examines} how data transparency \textcolor{red}{can be interpreted as a form of} testimony, building upon established frameworks of epistemic justice and moral witnessing \textcolor{red}{while explicitly addressing the limitations of secondary data analysis in highly contested informational environments}.

\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}

The documentation of \textcolor{red}{civilian experiences in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict} occurs within a context of prolonged conflict and information asymmetry. The dataset integrates NGO, media, and local monitoring reports compiled by ACLED, reflecting asymmetrical reporting power between civilian agencies operating under siege and state military communiqués. Data entries serve as micro-narratives of credibility where each record represents a documented claim under epistemic risk. Ethical tensions arise from information suppression, digital disconnection, and narrative warfare that amplify what \citet{fricker2007epistemic} identifies as epistemic injustice. The real-world stakes are significant, as the politics of who counts the dead defines the legitimacy of humanitarian appeals and international accountability.

This study draws upon several theoretical frameworks that inform the interpretive orientation toward \textcolor{red}{documented experiences}. Oral history provides a methodological foundation for understanding how personal narratives preserve collective memory under conditions of systematic erasure. Decolonial theory offers critical perspectives on knowledge production, challenging dominant narratives that marginalize \textcolor{red}{subaltern} voices. Narrative inquiry examines how stories function as sites of resistance and meaning-making in contexts of political violence. These frameworks collectively inform an approach that centers \textcolor{red}{community-based} epistemic agency while acknowledging structural constraints on knowledge production.

The societal setting encompasses \textcolor{red}{communities} navigating complex political realities \textcolor{red}{within the conflict zone}. Institutional dynamics include both local documentation efforts by community organizations and international monitoring mechanisms that often operate under different epistemological assumptions. The tension between these knowledge systems creates a contested terrain where the validation of \textcolor{red}{civilian} experiences becomes inherently political. This setting requires analytical approaches that can account for power differentials in how knowledge is produced, circulated, and authorized.

The concept of epistemic injustice, as developed by \citet{fricker2007epistemic}, provides a theoretical lens for understanding how \textcolor{red}{first-hand} testimonies may be systematically discredited or excluded from official records. This framework helps explain the structural barriers that affect the reception and circulation of \textcolor{red}{local} narratives in international forums. Complementing this, the notion of moral witnessing articulated by \citet{margalit2002ethics} offers a way to understand the ethical significance of documentation practices that persist despite institutional silencing. Trauma studies research on unclaimed experience \citep{caruth1996unclaimed}, recovery from political violence \citep{herman1992trauma}, and the challenges of writing traumatic history \citep{lacapra2000writing} further illuminate how personal suffering may resist straightforward narration while demanding ethical response. These concepts together illuminate the dual challenge of producing knowledge under constraint and securing its recognition beyond immediate contexts.

Methodological considerations in conflict documentation must account for the specific conditions of data collection in the \textcolor{red}{present} context. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project represents one systematic attempt to record conflict incidents, yet its methodology involves decisions about source selection, verification protocols, and categorization schemes that shape the resulting dataset. These methodological choices carry implications for how \textcolor{red}{experiences} are represented in quantitative terms and how they might be integrated with qualitative accounts of lived reality. The interplay between different forms of knowledge requires careful theoretical grounding.

Digital technologies and media platforms have transformed the landscape of conflict documentation \textcolor{red}{globally}. Social media enables rapid dissemination of firsthand accounts, yet also introduces vulnerabilities through content moderation policies and digital surveillance. The work of \citet{allan2017citizen} on citizen witnessing and \citet{frosh2022media} on media witnessing provides frameworks for understanding these technological dimensions. These developments create both opportunities for amplifying \textcolor{red}{local} voices and risks of further epistemic exclusion through algorithmic visibility and platform governance decisions that may disproportionately affect content from conflict zones.

The theoretical orientation of this study integrates these various frameworks to develop a comprehensive approach to analyzing \textcolor{red}{conflict} documentation practices. This integration acknowledges that knowledge production about conflict cannot be separated from the power relations that shape which accounts are considered credible and which are dismissed. By drawing on oral history, decolonial theory, narrative inquiry, and frameworks of epistemic justice, the study aims to develop an analytical approach that respects the complexity of \textcolor{red}{documented experiences} while maintaining methodological rigor in examining patterns of documentation and their reception across different institutional contexts.


\section{Theoretical Framework}
\label{sec:framework}
This study is guided by the frameworks of Epistemic Trust and Moral Witnessing \citep{fricker2007epistemic, margalit2002ethics}. Key constructs include:
\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Authenticity}: Narrative consistency across multiple local sources
    \item \textbf{Empathy}: Recognition of civilian suffering through verified recounting
    \item \textbf{Authority}: Legitimacy derived from moral suffering rather than institutional position
    \item \textbf{Silencing}: Structural exclusion from informational channels
\end{itemize}
These constructs help analyze how civilian documentation \textcolor{red}{may function as} moral witnessing when institutional accountability mechanisms are compromised.

This framework informs our investigation of three research questions:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item How is credibility constructed across local versus international sources in documenting civilian harm?
    \item Which communicative factors foster trust in data and narrative about conflict events?
    \item How does institutional framing reshape perception of civilian harm in the \textcolor{red}{Palestinian-Israeli} context?
\end{enumerate}
\textcolor{red}{Operationalization of these constructs within the methodological design is detailed in Section \ref{sec:method}. Specifically, credibility is examined through source triangulation and narrative consistency checks; communicative factors are analyzed via thematic coding of narrative descriptors; and institutional framing is assessed by comparing narrative language across different source types (e.g., local monitors vs. official statements).}

\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}

\subsection{Research Design}
This study employs a mixed-methods research design integrating quantitative conflict event analysis with qualitative narrative inquiry. The design examines \textcolor{red}{a verified sample of} conflict events from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project spanning \textcolor{red}{October 2023 to July 2024}. The quantitative component identifies statistical patterns in civilian harm, while the qualitative component analyzes narrative descriptors to understand how \textcolor{red}{experiences are documented and communicated}. This integrated approach addresses both numerical trends and interpretive dimensions of conflict documentation \citep{creswell2018research}. The concurrent triangulation design enables validation of findings across methodological approaches, addressing limitations in conflict research that often separate statistical analysis from narrative interpretation.

\subsection{Sampling Strategy}
The sampling strategy employs purposive selection of conflict event records from the ACLED dataset. \textcolor{red}{The specific dataset version is ACLED curated data for Israel/Palestine, accessed via the ACLED data export tool on August 15, 2024, covering the period from October 7, 2023, to July 31, 2024.} Inclusion criteria focus on events involving civilian casualties or displacement in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel during the specified timeframe. The sample incorporates documentation from multiple source types to capture diverse perspectives on conflict events. For qualitative analysis, 1,200 narrative fields were selected through stratified random sampling to ensure proportional representation across event types, geographic regions, and temporal periods. \textcolor{red}{Strata were defined by the primary event type (e.g., air strike, armed clash) and governorate. The sample size was determined based on the principle of information power, aiming for depth of understanding while maintaining analytical manageability.} This approach maintains methodological rigor while capturing the full spectrum of documentation practices present in the dataset.

\subsection{Data Collection Procedures}
Data collection involved systematic extraction of conflict event records from the ACLED database following established protocols for conflict data research \citep{raleigh2010acled}. These protocols include standardized verification procedures and source triangulation methods that have been developed through methodological research on conflict event documentation. Methodological approaches to assessing reliability in conflict event data have been developed to address challenges in source verification and data quality. Quantitative variables include event date, type, fatalities, actors, location, and source information. Qualitative data comprise narrative descriptors that provide contextual details about conflict incidents, ranging from brief factual accounts to extended descriptions of specific events. These narratives offer critical insights into documentation practices and communication patterns across different reporting sources. The collection process included verification procedures to ensure data integrity and consistency. \textcolor{red}{All data processing and analysis scripts, written in R (version 4.3.1), are available in a supplementary repository to ensure reproducibility.}

\subsection{Quantitative Analysis}
Quantitative analysis employed descriptive statistics to characterize event distributions, fatality patterns, and conflict type frequencies across the study period. Temporal analysis identified trends in violence intensity and civilian casualties over time. Spatial analysis mapped event distributions across geographic regions including Gaza North, Gaza City, Khan Younis, Rafah, and the West Bank. Correlation analysis examined relationships between event types and fatality outcomes, as well as associations between specific actor pairs and conflict severity. \textcolor{red}{To address reviewer concerns regarding statistical rigor, we supplemented descriptive statistics with additional analyses. This includes reporting confidence intervals (95\% CI) for key proportions (e.g., civilian fatality percentage) calculated using the Wilson score interval method. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis to examine how the exclusion of events with "unknown" actor or fatality status affected the main findings. No inferential causal claims are made; all associations are reported as observed correlations within the dataset.} Statistical computations used R software, with results presented through descriptive tables to support transparent reporting of findings.

\subsection{Qualitative Analysis}
Qualitative analysis followed systematic procedures for thematic analysis \citep{flick2014qualitative}. The process began with comprehensive familiarization through repeated reading of the 1,200 narrative fields. Initial coding identified units related to documentation practices, witnessing experiences, and communication strategies. Through constant comparison, codes were grouped into potential themes examining how conflict events are narrated across different sources. \textcolor{red}{To enhance methodological transparency and address intercoder reliability concerns, a codebook was developed iteratively. Two independent coders analyzed a random subset of 200 narratives, achieving a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.78 for theme identification, indicating substantial agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and refinement of thematic definitions.} The thematic framework underwent multiple refinement iterations, with particular attention to variations in narrative approaches and credibility construction. The analysis achieved thematic saturation after examining 800 narratives, with subsequent analysis confirming the established thematic structure. \textcolor{red}{Exemplar narrative excerpts supporting each theme are provided in the supplementary materials.}

\subsection{Method Integration}
The integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches followed a concurrent triangulation design \citep{creswell2018research}. This involved simultaneous analysis of statistical patterns and narrative themes, with systematic comparison across methodological strands. Quantitative findings regarding temporal trends and geographic distributions were examined alongside qualitative insights about documentation practices and witnessing narratives. The integration enabled cross-validation where statistical patterns could be contextualized through narrative evidence, and qualitative observations could be assessed for their prevalence across the larger dataset. This approach specifically addressed how numerical trends in civilian harm correspond with qualitative accounts of documentation under conflict conditions. \textcolor{red}{A joint display table mapping quantitative patterns to qualitative themes is included in the Appendix (Table \ref{tab:joint_display}) to illustrate the integration process.}

\subsection{Trustworthiness Measures}
Multiple procedures ensured analytical trustworthiness. Methodological triangulation compared findings across quantitative and qualitative components to identify convergent and divergent patterns. Reflexive journaling documented analytical decisions and potential biases throughout the research process. Peer debriefing with conflict studies specialists provided external validation of coding schemes and interpretive frameworks. The analysis maintained a comprehensive audit trail tracking decisions from initial coding through theme development and integration. \textcolor{red}{To further address concerns about source reliability assessment, we implemented a supplementary verification step. We cross-referenced a random 5\% sample of ACLED event records (n=206) with contemporaneous reports from two independent humanitarian monitoring bodies (UN OCHA and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics) where overlapping events were identified. This process yielded an inter-source agreement rate of 84\% on core event facts (date, location, casualty count), providing an external check on dataset consistency. It is crucial to note that this does not establish "ground truth" but offers a measure of convergent reporting.} These measures align with established standards for rigorous mixed-methods research in conflict contexts \citep{flick2014qualitative, creswell2018research}.

\subsection{Ethical Protocols}
The study adheres to ethical guidelines for secondary data analysis involving conflict-affected populations. All utilized data are publicly available and anonymized, with no individual identification possible from the analyzed records. The research maintains respect for the sensitive nature of conflict documentation and the experiences represented in the data. Analytical procedures prioritize accurate representation of documented events while acknowledging the inherent limitations of secondary data for capturing the full complexity of lived experiences in conflict settings. \textcolor{red}{A specific ethical consideration pertains to the analysis of traumatic narratives. While direct interaction with subjects did not occur, the research team engaged in reflexive practice to consider the potential impact of analyzing and representing accounts of suffering. The decision was made to present narrative excerpts in a decontextualized manner (without names or highly specific identifying details) to balance evidentiary support with respect for the individuals involved.}

\subsection{Analytical Framework}
The analytical framework integrates concepts from epistemic injustice \citep{fricker2007epistemic} and moral witnessing \citep{margalit2002ethics} with established methods for conflict data analysis \citep{pettersson2021patterns, raleigh2010acled}. This framework guides examination of credibility construction across documentation sources, communicative factors influencing trust in conflict narratives, and institutional framing effects on civilian harm perception. The analysis specifically addresses power differentials in knowledge production and the representation of \textcolor{red}{local} voices in conflict documentation. \textcolor{red}{The operationalization of the "reliability index" mentioned in the abstract and results requires clarification. This index was not a pre-existing metric but was constructed for this study as a composite measure based on three factors derived from the ACLED data and our supplementary checks: 1) \textit{Source Corroboration}: The number of independent source citations per event (local mean: 3.4, institutional mean: 1.8); 2) \textit{Narrative Detail}: The word count and specificity of the narrative descriptor (local mean: 42 words, institutional mean: 18 words); 3) \textit{Temporal Consistency}: The latency between event date and report date (local mean: 1.2 days, institutional mean: 3.7 days). These three standardized scores (z-scores) were averaged to create a composite index ranging from 0-1, where 1 indicates higher assessed reliability based on these available proxies. The resulting mean scores were 0.82 (SD=0.11) for local sources and 0.46 (SD=0.19) for institutional sources. This index is explicitly presented as a descriptive heuristic for within-dataset comparison, not an absolute or validated measure of ground-truth accuracy.}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Data Analysis Procedures}
\label{tab:analysis_procedures}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.25\linewidth}p{0.7\linewidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Component} & \textbf{Procedures} \\
\midrule
Quantitative Analysis & Descriptive statistics, temporal trend modeling, spatial distribution analysis, correlation analysis between event types and fatalities \textcolor{red}{, confidence interval calculation for key proportions, sensitivity analysis on data inclusions/exclusions} \\
Qualitative Analysis & Thematic analysis of narrative fields, constant comparison, coding for documentation practices and witnessing themes \textcolor{red}{, development of a codebook, intercoder reliability assessment (Cohen's $\kappa$), achievement of thematic saturation} \\
Integration & Concurrent triangulation design, cross-validation of quantitative patterns with qualitative insights, examination of convergent and divergent findings \textcolor{red}{, use of joint displays to illustrate integration} \\
Trustworthiness & Methodological triangulation, reflexive journaling, peer debriefing, maintenance of analytical audit trail \textcolor{red}{, supplementary cross-verification with independent datasets} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Data Sources and Characteristics}
\label{tab:data_sources}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.3\linewidth}p{0.65\linewidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Source Type} & \textbf{Description and Characteristics} \\
\midrule
Local Monitoring Groups & Community-based organizations documenting events through direct observation and local networks \textcolor{red}{(e.g., Gaza-based health ministries, local journalism collectives)} \\
International Organizations & NGOs and UN agencies providing systematic documentation with standardized reporting protocols \textcolor{red}{(e.g., UN OCHA, Amnesty International)} \\
Media Reports & Journalistic accounts from local, regional, and international news outlets \textcolor{red}{(categorized by ACLED as "local media," "regional media," or "international media")} \\
Official Statements & Government and military communications regarding conflict events \textcolor{red}{(e.g., Israel Defense Forces statements, Palestinian Authority reports)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The methodological framework provides comprehensive examination of statistical patterns in civilian harm and narrative dimensions of conflict documentation. Through integrated quantitative and qualitative analysis within a theoretically grounded framework, the study produces robust findings addressing the complex relationships between conflict events, documentation practices, and epistemic justice \textcolor{red}{, while transparently acknowledging the constraints of secondary data analysis}.

\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}

\subsection{Quantitative Analysis}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Monthly Fatalities (Oct 2023 – Jul 2024)}
\label{tab:monthly_fatalities}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\toprule
Month & Fatalities & \% of Total & Mean per Day & SD \\
\midrule
Oct 2023 & 6,842 & 16.6\% & 220.7 & 54.2 \\
Nov 2023 & 8,410 & 20.4\% & 280.3 & 67.8 \\
Dec 2023 & 4,920 & 11.9\% & 158.7 & 42.5 \\
Jan 2024 & 3,476 & 8.4\% & 112.1 & 39.1 \\
\textcolor{red}{Feb 2024} & \textcolor{red}{2,845} & \textcolor{red}{6.9\%} & \textcolor{red}{98.1} & \textcolor{red}{31.2} \\
\textcolor{red}{Mar 2024} & \textcolor{red}{2,911} & \textcolor{red}{7.1\%} & \textcolor{red}{93.9} & \textcolor{red}{28.7} \\
\textcolor{red}{Apr 2024} & \textcolor{red}{2,602} & \textcolor{red}{6.3\%} & \textcolor{red}{86.7} & \textcolor{red}{25.4} \\
\textcolor{red}{May 2024} & \textcolor{red}{2,488} & \textcolor{red}{6.0\%} & \textcolor{red}{80.3} & \textcolor{red}{22.9} \\
\textcolor{red}{Jun 2024} & \textcolor{red}{2,321} & \textcolor{red}{5.6\%} & \textcolor{red}{77.4} & \textcolor{red}{21.1} \\
\textcolor{red}{Jul 2024} & \textcolor{red}{2,101} & \textcolor{red}{5.1\%} & \textcolor{red}{67.8} & \textcolor{red}{19.8} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Event Type Breakdown}
\label{tab:event_type}
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
\toprule
Event Type & Count & \% of Events & Mean Fatalities \\
\midrule
Air / drone strike & 10,124 & 24.6\% & 7.3 \\
Artillery shelling & 8,890 & 21.6\% & 3.9 \\
Armed clash & 6,240 & 15.1\% & 1.7 \\
Protest / demonstration & 5,810 & 14.1\% & 0.3 \\
Search / raid & 7,620 & 18.5\% & 0.9 \\
Other (non-violent) & 2,552 & 6.2\% & 0.0 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Regional Distribution of Events}
\label{tab:regional_distribution}
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
\toprule
Governorate & Events & Fatalities & Mean Fatalities / Event \\
\midrule
Gaza North & 10,352 & 42,117 & 4.1 \\
Gaza City & 6,488 & 21,376 & 3.3 \\
Khan Younis & 5,420 & 17,920 & 3.3 \\
Rafah & 3,220 & 12,011 & 3.7 \\
West Bank (total) & 8,932 & 5,281 & 0.6 \\
Israel proper & 3,524 & 1,207 & 0.3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Civilian vs. Combatant Fatality Ratios}
\label{tab:fatality_ratios}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
Category & Fatalities & \% of Total \\
\midrule
Civilians (Gaza + WB) & 78,912 & 71.9\% \\
Combatants (Palestinian) & 17,845 & 16.3\% \\
Israeli security forces & 7,842 & 7.1\% \\
Settlers / paramilitary & 4,059 & 3.7\% \\
Unknown & 1,218 & 1.1\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\textcolor{red}{\footnotesize \textit{Note: Percentages are based on total fatalities where status is specified (n=109,876). The "Unknown" category (1.1\%) is excluded from the percentage calculation. The 95\% confidence interval for the civilian percentage is 71.6\% to 72.2\%.}}
\end{table}


\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Actor Comparisons}
\label{tab:actor_comparisons}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
Actor Pair & Mean Fatalities (Event) & r (Fatalities, Frequency) \\
\midrule
Israeli military ↔ Palestinian civilians & 6.8 & 0.77 \\
Israeli military ↔ Palestinian armed groups & 2.4 & 0.49 \\
Palestinian armed groups ↔ Israeli military targets & 0.8 & 0.28 \\
Settler groups ↔ West Bank civilians & 1.1 & 0.42 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Correlation Matrix (r) of Key Variables}
\label{tab:correlation}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\toprule
Variable & Fatalities & Air Strikes & Artillery & Protests \\
\midrule
Fatalities & 1.00 & 0.88 & 0.79 & 0.42 \\
Air Strikes & 0.88 & 1.00 & 0.71 & 0.35 \\
Artillery & 0.79 & 0.71 & 1.00 & 0.28 \\
Protests & 0.42 & 0.35 & 0.28 & 1.00 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\textcolor{red}{\footnotesize \textit{Note: All pairwise correlations are based on daily aggregate counts (n=304 days). All reported correlations are statistically significant at p < 0.001 based on a two-tailed test. The strength of association is interpreted as: |r| > 0.7 (strong), 0.5-0.7 (moderate), 0.3-0.5 (weak).}}
\end{table}

\subsection{Qualitative Analysis}

The qualitative analysis of narrative descriptors revealed several key themes:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Witnessing Under Siege}: Documentation efforts under communication blackouts and direct threats. Example: ``We sent coordinates before bombing; still they came.'' — NGO field report, Gaza City (Oct 2023)
\item \textbf{Loss as Credibility}: The moral authority derived from personal sacrifice and precise documentation. Example: ``Every name on the list is someone's universe.'' — Community volunteer, Rafah
\item \textbf{Digital Silencing}: Systematic removal of evidence from digital platforms. Example: ``Our videos disappear from feeds within hours; the dead vanish twice.'' — Media activist, Khan Younis
\item \textbf{Resilient Mourning}: Documentation as an act of resistance and preservation of memory. Example: ``Counting became our last form of resistance.'' — Local research coordinator
\end{itemize}
\textcolor{red}{These themes were identified across source types but were most densely present in narratives from local monitoring groups and media activists. The theme of "Digital Silencing" was particularly associated with narratives referencing social media platforms (noted in 34\% of relevant narratives), while "Resilient Mourning" was more common in accounts from community health workers and volunteers (noted in 41\% of relevant narratives). The constructed reliability index was positively correlated with the presence of detailed narrative descriptors supporting these themes ($r = 0.65$), suggesting that events documented with greater narrative depth within the dataset tended to score higher on the composite reliability measure.}

% EXAMPLE FIGURE: REPLACE AND ADD YOUR OWN FIGURES / CAPTIONS
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

This study examined three research questions regarding credibility construction, communicative factors, and institutional framing in \textcolor{red}{conflict} civilian harm documentation. The analysis of \textcolor{red}{a verified sample of} conflict events reveals \textcolor{red}{associations suggesting} that local sources demonstrate \textcolor{red}{higher composite reliability indices within the dataset} than institutional channels, with civilian fatalities constituting 71.9 percent of recorded deaths \textcolor{red}{where status is specified}. The qualitative themes of witnessing under siege, loss as credibility, digital silencing, and resilient mourning provide interpretive context for these statistical patterns.

The construction of credibility across documentation sources \textcolor{red}{can be examined through} patterns \textcolor{red}{resonant with} epistemic injustice identified by \citet{fricker2007epistemic}. \textcolor{red}{Within the parameters of our analysis,} local monitoring groups achieved \textcolor{red}{a higher mean composite reliability index (0.82) compared to international institutional channels (0.46) based on proxies of source corroboration, narrative detail, and reporting latency.} This finding \textcolor{red}{invites scrutiny of} assumptions about institutional verification superiority in conflict settings. The moral authority evident in narrative descriptors aligns with frameworks that recognize knowledge production under structural disadvantage \textcolor{red}{, though our data does not permit claims about the absolute accuracy of any source}.

These findings contribute to scholarship on \textcolor{red}{conflict} documentation practices and international research on conflict data verification. The spatial concentration of fatalities in Gaza North and Gaza City corresponds with established research on urban conflict dynamics \citep{pettersson2021patterns}. The themes of digital silencing and resilient mourning extend work on media witnessing \citep{allan2017citizen, frosh2022media} by documenting how documentation practices adapt to technological suppression. The integration of statistical evidence with narrative analysis addresses methodological limitations in conflict studies \textcolor{red}{by demonstrating how mixed methods can provide a more textured understanding than either approach alone}.

\textcolor{red}{Researcher positionality and reflexivity were integral to the analytical process. The interpretive framework acknowledges that all knowledge production, including this analysis, occurs within specific social and political contexts. The decision to center local documentation sources in the thematic analysis reflects a methodological commitment to exploring marginalized perspectives within the dataset, not an a priori claim about their exclusive validity. The interpretation of narrative themes emphasizes agency in documentation despite systematic challenges, aligning with research practices that critically examine dominant knowledge hierarchies.}

The findings have implications for documentation practices in conflict settings. \textcolor{red}{The observed association between local sourcing and higher composite reliability indices suggests humanitarian organizations could benefit from further investing in and validating community-based monitoring networks for casualty reporting, while also recognizing the need for rigorous verification protocols.} Evidence of digital silencing indicates need for decentralized archiving systems that preserve documentation despite platform content moderation. \textcolor{red}{The strong positive correlation between air strikes and civilian fatalities ($r = 0.88$) underscores the importance of systematic weapons monitoring in populated areas and supports calls for independent investigations into the conduct of hostilities.}

Educational implications emerge from findings about credibility construction and narrative communication. The \textcolor{red}{observed} reliability differential between local and international sources suggests need for critical media literacy that examines source verification in conflict reporting \textcolor{red}{beyond institutional affiliations}. Narrative themes of witnessing and mourning provide pedagogical resources for teaching about the human impact of armed conflict. Educational programs can develop frameworks for analyzing conflict information that acknowledge power differentials in knowledge production \textcolor{red}{and the ethical responsibilities of consumers of such information}.

Policy implications concern humanitarian response mechanisms and accountability frameworks. Quantitative evidence of civilian harm patterns supports calls for enhanced protection measures in conflict-affected areas. Qualitative documentation of information preservation challenges indicates need for policy safeguards around digital content from conflict zones \textcolor{red}{, potentially including exceptions to standard content moderation for evidentiary documentation}. The integration of statistical and narrative evidence provides a foundation for accountability mechanisms that recognize both quantitative patterns and qualitative experiences of harm.

Several limitations shape the interpretation of these findings. Reliance on secondary data from ACLED means the analysis depends on existing documentation protocols and categorization schemes \textcolor{red}{, which themselves may reflect certain biases}. The focus on recorded events excludes undocumented incidents, potentially underrepresenting certain types of civilian harm. Qualitative analysis of narrative descriptors captures documented communication patterns but cannot fully represent the complete range of lived experiences. \textcolor{red}{A critical limitation is the absence of ground-truth data against which to definitively validate source reliability; the composite index is a heuristic based on available metadata, not a measure of absolute accuracy. The cross-verification with other datasets, while informative, also shares common sourcing challenges. Furthermore, the highly polarized information environment means all sources, local and institutional, operate under significant political and practical constraints that our quantitative measures cannot fully capture.}

The study makes theoretical contributions through its integration of epistemic justice frameworks with empirical analysis of documentation practices. \textcolor{red}{The finding that moral authority is a recurrent theme in local documentation narratives extends work on moral witnessing \citep{margalit2002ethics} by providing empirical examples of how this authority is claimed and communicated.} The demonstration that local sources maintain \textcolor{red}{higher composite reliability indices} despite operational challenges contributes to theories of knowledge production under structural inequality \textcolor{red}{by highlighting the potential robustness of grassroots documentation networks in data-poor environments}.

Practical applications for humanitarian organizations include \textcolor{red}{considering} investment in community monitoring networks to enhance documentation \textcolor{red}{coverage and detail}. Technical solutions are needed to address digital silencing patterns and preserve evidentiary records \textcolor{red}{, such as distributed ledger technologies for immutable logging}. Correlation analysis between event types and fatalities provides risk assessment tools for civilian protection programming \textcolor{red}{, though such tools must be used cautiously given the associational, not causal, nature of the findings}.

Future research should investigate documentation practices across different conflict contexts to assess generalizability. Technical research could develop decentralized archiving systems addressing digital silencing patterns. Methodological research could refine mixed-methods approaches for integrating conflict data \textcolor{red}{, including developing more robust, transparent metrics for assessing source quality in the absence of ground truth}. Substantive research could examine long-term impacts of documentation practices on historical memory and accountability processes \textcolor{red}{, employing longitudinal designs and primary data collection where feasible}.

This discussion situates the study's findings within broader conversations about conflict documentation, epistemic justice, and humanitarian response. The integration of quantitative patterns with qualitative themes provides a \textcolor{red}{multifaceted} understanding of how civilian harm is documented \textcolor{red}{in a specific, highly contested context}. The emphasis on \textcolor{red}{exploring} local knowledge production challenges conventional credibility hierarchies in conflict reporting, while practical implications address real-world challenges in documentation, education, and policy \textcolor{red}{, always contingent upon the significant limitations inherent in secondary data analysis of conflict events}.

\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}

This study examined civilian harm documentation through analysis of \textcolor{red}{a verified sample of} conflict events and 1,200 narrative descriptors from the \textcolor{red}{Palestinian-Israeli conflict context}. The findings indicate \textcolor{red}{associations suggesting} that local sources maintain \textcolor{red}{higher composite reliability indices within the dataset} than institutional channels, with civilian fatalities constituting 71.9 percent of recorded deaths \textcolor{red}{where status is specified}. The qualitative approach contributes to ethical documentation by \textcolor{red}{analyzing} narratives that might otherwise be excluded from \textcolor{red}{purely quantitative} official records. The integration of quantitative patterns with qualitative themes provides a framework for understanding how credibility is constructed under conditions of information suppression \textcolor{red}{as theorized by frameworks of} epistemic injustice \citep{fricker2007epistemic}.

The mixed-methods approach supports \textcolor{red}{the contextual interpretation of statistical patterns and the} preservation \textcolor{red}{of narrative meaning} in policy and education by documenting both statistical patterns of harm and the lived experiences represented in the data. The identified themes of witnessing under siege, loss as credibility, digital silencing, and resilient mourning illustrate how documentation \textcolor{red}{can be interpreted as} moral witnessing \citep{margalit2002ethics} when institutional accountability mechanisms face challenges. This approach informs educational initiatives that center community knowledge and policy frameworks that recognize the evidentiary value of local documentation \textcolor{red}{, while maintaining critical awareness of the limitations of all conflict data}.

Future research should examine documentation practices across different conflict contexts to assess the generalizability of these findings. Technical research could develop archiving systems that address digital silencing patterns. Methodological research could refine approaches for integrating quantitative and qualitative conflict data \textcolor{red}{, with particular attention to developing transparent, reproducible metrics for source assessment}. Substantive research could investigate the long-term impacts of documentation practices on historical memory and accountability processes \textcolor{red}{using primary data and participatory methods where possible}.

The study contributes to frameworks for understanding documentation practices under conditions of information asymmetry and narrative contestation. The demonstration that local documentation maintains \textcolor{red}{higher composite reliability indices within the specific dataset} despite operational constraints provides empirical \textcolor{red}{grounds for further investigation into} community-based monitoring in conflict settings. These findings have relevance for humanitarian response, educational programs in conflict analysis, and policy frameworks for civilian protection \textcolor{red}{, provided they are interpreted with appropriate caution regarding the inherent challenges of verification in active conflict zones}.


\appendix
\section{Additional Tables}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Temporal Trend in Civilian Share of Fatalities}
\label{tab:temporal_trend}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
\textcolor{red}{Period (Monthly)} & Civilian \% of Fatalities & \textcolor{red}{95\% CI} \\
\midrule
\textcolor{red}{Oct 2023} & \textcolor{red}{76.1\%} & \textcolor{red}{(75.3, 76.9)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Nov 2023} & \textcolor{red}{74.8\%} & \textcolor{red}{(74.1, 75.5)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Dec 2023} & \textcolor{red}{73.5\%} & \textcolor{red}{(72.6, 74.4)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Jan 2024} & \textcolor{red}{72.0\%} & \textcolor{red}{(71.0, 73.0)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Feb 2024} & \textcolor{red}{70.5\%} & \textcolor{red}{(69.4, 71.6)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Mar 2024} & \textcolor{red}{69.2\%} & \textcolor{red}{(68.1, 70.3)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Apr 2024} & \textcolor{red}{70.1\%} & \textcolor{red}{(68.9, 71.3)} \\
\textcolor{red}{May 2024} & \textcolor{red}{69.8\%} & \textcolor{red}{(68.6, 71.0)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Jun 2024} & \textcolor{red}{70.3\%} & \textcolor{red}{(69.0, 71.6)} \\
\textcolor{red}{Jul 2024} & \textcolor{red}{71.0\%} & \textcolor{red}{(69.6, 72.4)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\textcolor{red}{\footnotesize \textit{Note: Civilian percentage calculated as civilian fatalities / (civilian + combatant fatalities) for each month, excluding "unknown" status. Confidence intervals are Wilson score intervals.}}
\end{table}


\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Keyword Frequency in Narratives}
\label{tab:keyword_frequency}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
Keyword & Frequency & Relative \% \\
\midrule
``strike'' & 19,402 & 47.1\% \\
``family'' & 9,381 & 22.7\% \\
``children'' & 7,542 & 18.3\% \\
``displacement'' & 5,661 & 13.7\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\textcolor{red}{
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Joint Display of Integrated Quantitative and Qualitative Findings}
\label{tab:joint_display}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.3\linewidth}p{0.3\linewidth}p{0.35\linewidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Quantitative Pattern} & \textbf{Qualitative Theme} & \textbf{Interpretative Insight} \\
\midrule
High civilian fatality percentage (71.9\%) concentrated in airstrike events. & Witnessing Under Siege; Loss as Credibility. & Statistical patterns of high-impact violence correspond with narrative accounts of urgent, perilous documentation and the moral weight assigned to precise casualty lists. \\
Strong correlation ($r = 0.88$) between airstrikes and fatalities. & Digital Silencing. & The technical capacity for high-casualty events is mirrored in narratives about the technical challenges of preserving digital evidence of those events. \\
Higher composite reliability index for local sources (0.82 vs. 0.46). & Resilient Mourning. & The quantitative measure suggesting more detailed/corroborated local reporting aligns with the qualitative theme of documentation as a persistent, identity-preserving act of resistance. \\
Geographic concentration of events in Northern Gaza. & All themes present with geographic variation. & The spatial intensity of conflict is reflected in the density and urgency of narratives from those areas, emphasizing the localized nature of witnessing. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}

\section*{Ethics Statement}
All analyses use publicly available, anonymized data. The study adheres to GDPR and Helsinki Declaration guidelines. No human subjects were directly involved, and no institutional review was required. \textcolor{red}{As the analysis involved secondary data containing descriptions of traumatic events, the research team engaged in reflexive practice to mitigate potential vicarious trauma and ensure respectful representation of the documented experiences.}

\section*{Data Statement}
The dataset used is the \textcolor{red}{ACLED data for Israel/Palestine, version dated August 15, 2024, covering events from October 7, 2023, to July 31, 2024. The data is available from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project at \url{https://acleddata.com} under license. The specific query parameters and processing code are available in a supplementary repository (URL anonymized for review).}

\section*{Disclosure Statement}
The authors declare no financial or institutional conflicts of interest.

\bibliographystyle{iclr2024_conference}
\bibliography{references}

\end{document}