The Politics of the Formation of Alliance Governments in Multi-Ethnic States: A Case Study of the Nigerian First Alliance Government, 1954-57
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of alliances is one of the features of the politics of most multi-ethnic states. This is because, more often than not, extreme ethnicity and competition for the control of the “structural frame” and “system of rewards” always prevent the existence of nation-wide or country-wide political associations and the emergence of nationally acknowledged political leaders. Yet, in order to guard against the domination of the “minorities” by the “majorities,” the constitutions of most federal and non-federal multi-ethnic states often stipulate that the centre governments of such states must be formed by the parties or candidates with the overall majority of either parliamentary seats or total votes cast. Since this is always difficult to achieve, particularly in Nigeria where appeal to ethnic sentiments is almost always a predominant issue in electioneering campaigns, the formation of alliance-governments has become inevitable. In the formation of these alliances however, a lot of political manoeuvring takes place. This article discusses the politics behind, the factors responsible for, as well as the consequences of, the formation of Nigeria's first alliance government.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".