Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Violence in Africa for instance is pathological. Some forms of violence, particularly those perpetrated by the law enforcement agents of the state operate as an effective mechanism for order maintenance and stability. Some other forms of violence are usually in opposition to stability and calls for change. While the former is legitimate the letter is illegitimate. Violence plays an indispensable role in power acquisition and maintenance. Those who have the freedom which derives from the right to use legitimated violence are in a much better position to acquire or maintain power than are persons lacking this freedom to challenge it successfully. Any change which extends or restricts the boundaries of legitimated violence is likely to affect directly the distribution of power, thereby affecting the nature of social relations within and between groups. This relationship between power and violence is one major reason why it is important to understand the processes of legitimation and de-legitimation of violence. Legitimation and de-legitimation of violence having significant political and social consequences does not occur without advocates, justifications platform, and alteration of public reactions and conceptions. Using conflict and liberal perspectives to evaluate the occurrence of violence in social relation, this paper discusses peasantry/state power relations and power change in African context and the place of violence therein. It examined the quest to violently challenge the state authority and also the continuous push for order/stability and continuity by the state. Also, the paper attempts resolution to the contradictions arising from the use of violence either to ensure stability or change. Key words: Violence, Legitimation, De-legitimation, Law enforcement, Peasantry, State, Power relation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".