Les prélats africains et les tentatives de démocratisation du début de la décennie 1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".