MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102399536 · doi:10.1080/713999539

'Made in Africa' Versus 'Out of Africa': Comparing South Africa's Non-Leadership with Canada's Leadership in the 1996 Crisis in Eastern Zaire

2001· article· en· W2102399536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Cooper, I Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonwealth and Comparative Politics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsPolitical economySociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response of the international community to the 1996 crisis in Eastern Zaire raises a number of significant questions. This paper looks at the puzzle concerning the nature and degree of direct involvement by outside powers. At a time when 'made in Africa' solutions to crisis situations had begun to generate some impetus, the 'out of Africa' leadership role taken on by Canada stood out as an apparent aberration. Equally, the non-leadership role adopted by South Africa seems curious given its own internal transition. In both Canada and South Africa, the distinctive (even idiosyncratic) approaches by national leaders had a significant impact on the way Canada and South Africa reacted to the crisis. Questions of personality in isolation, however, cannot tell us the full story and a number of other important ingredients must be added. These factors include the relative capabilities the two countries possessed in terms of domestic organisation, reputational influences, the impact of external influences, and the temporal conditions by which this intervention was played out.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.407
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.051 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommonwealth and Comparative PoliticsSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207