MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920113426

Realizing the African Standby Force as a Pan-African Ideal: Progress, Prospects and Challenges

2005· article· en· W1920113426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Theo Neethling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingIdeal (ethics)Political scienceModalitiesPublic administrationDevelopment economicsLawSociologyEconomicsSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is commonly accepted that there is a pressing need for African and other role-players to register progress on the need to address, manage and resolve conflicts around the troubled continent. The African Union made significant progress in the development of a cohesive African peace and security system in 2003 when African Chiefs of Defense Staff agreed on the modalities of an African Standby Force (ASF). The ASF concept seems to represent a serious intention on the part of African leaders to set up a multi-national force empowered to intervene militarily in conflict situations. It is also significant as the establishment of such a force will be the manifestation and development of a long-standing pan-African ideal to mobilize a standby (peacekeeping) force on the continent. In brief, the main aim of this paper is to outline, assess and discuss the rationale and some of the key elements for establishing and developing the ASF, and also to reflect on some of the challenges of implementation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207