MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998736647 · doi:10.1177/0037768606070411

Les prélats africains et les tentatives de démocratisation du début de la décennie 1990

2006· article· en· W1998736647 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Compass · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sainte Foy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromisePolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English In the beginning of the 1990s, unforeseen actors emerged from the periods of political crisis that took place in Africa. Among those actors was the Catholic Church. Approaching the mobilization for democratization from the angle of the resources activated by the various actors, this article analyses “compromise” as a resource which made it possible for the national catholic authorities to play a role in these sociopolitical transformations. If, to this day, the theoretical range of “compromise” has been adequately brought to light, the empirical value of the concept is not well known. This is why this contribution mainly aims at exposing the conceptual operationalization of “compromise” obtained from an analysis of contents. As a conclusion, we propose a three-point discussion. French Les périodes de crise politique en Afrique au début des années 1990 ont fait surgir des acteurs imprévus. Parmi eux, l'Église catholique. Abordant les mobilisations, en vue de la démocratisation, sous l'angle des ressources activées par les différents acteurs, l'auteure analyse dans cet article le compromis comme ressource qui aurait permis d'inscrire les autorités catholiques nationales au coeur de cette dynamique de transformation de l'ordre sociopolitique. Si, à ce jour, la portée théorique du compromis a efficacement été mise en lumière, la valeur empirique du concept demeure, pour sa part, méconnue. C'est pourquoi, cette contribution vise principalement à exposer l'opérationnalisation conceptuelle du compromis qui fut réalisée en vue d'une analyse de contenu. En guise de conclusion, une discussion en trois volets est proposée.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.317 · 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