Boko Haram and the Recurring Bomb Attacks in Nigeria: Attempt to Impose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempt to forcefully impose religious ideology and or belief on Nigeria’s secular society is not new. The leader of the Maitatsine sectarian group attempted it in 1981 and eventually led to large scale uprisings. Since the early 1980s and 2012, Nigeria has witnessed other uncountable religious related crises. Beginning from 2009, the country once again, has been stormed by large scale and unimaginable bomb attacks by the Boko Haram movement. Although Boko Haram can be compared in terms of philosophy and objectives to the Maitatsine sectarian group, its organisational planning, armed resistance, and modus operandi is Taliban and attacks executed by the groups so far the most ferocious and devastating. To arrest terrorism related offences, the Nigerian National Assembly on 17th February, 2011 passed a bill on Anti-Terrorism. Even with the Bill in place, and the invitation to negotiate by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, Boko Haram attacks which initially was confined to North-Eastern Nigeria, like cancer has infected the North-Central and is spreading to Southern Nigeria. Given the inherent unsettled political and economic environment, the menace caused by Boko Haram attacks has cashed in to compound an already chaotic situation. A fall-out of the Boko Haram saga for example, is the re-awakening of the acrimonious call for a Sovereign National Conferenceby implication; the so called ‘One Nigeria’ is being questioned. On the basis of this background, for the motives and intention of Boko haram, it can no longer be ignored, trivialised or abandoned. Apparently, the dynamics of terrorism in the context of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria remains insufficiently explored. This article aims to narrow such a gap by analysing the concept of terrorism in light of the philosophy and objectives, spectrum of strategies, dimensions and networking of Boko Haram movement in Nigeria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".