MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148214398 · doi:10.5334/sta.bu

Building a Political Settlement: The International Approach to Kenya’s 2008 Post-Election Crisis

2013· article· en· W2148214398 on OpenAlex
Karuti Kanyinga, Sophie Walker

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStability International Journal of Security and Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsSettlement (finance)Political economyContext (archaeology)Political scienceWork (physics)Human settlementArchetypeKenyaSociologyEconomicsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents findings from an empirical study of the 2008 Kenyan crisis, aimed at exploring the role and effectiveness of the international development and diplomatic communities’ response. This response involved working to ameliorate the fragile political environment that followed the disputed 2007 elections. Thus, this case study was selected as an archetype to demonstrate how international actors can work cooperatively on political settlements. The key objective of this research is to analyse and share lessons about how those international actors present in Kenya engaged with the evolving political settlement to address the conflict. This study draws upon evolving political economy and political settlement debates in its analysis and uses the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Fragile States Principles as a framework. Adopting such an analytical lens encourages examination of the multiple, context-specific underlying dynamics that influenced the role of international actors during this period of political transition. It also enables a study of the operational factors facing external actors when they attempt to work more politically, and recognition of how carefully these actors need to use the limited role they have in shaping the internal institutional arrangements and dynamics of the countries within which they work.<br />The study’s main findings indicate that in the 2008 post-election period the international development and diplomatic communities collectively commanded substantive influence over the nature and trajectory of Kenya’s evolving political settlement. It argues that these actors enhanced their influence over many important political issues principally as a result of applying good practice in fragile situations: understanding the context, adopting a unified and legitimate stance, coordinating and collaborating closely and acting fast to prevent conflict. They also laid the foundations for statebuilding in order to address the causes of the conflict. Prior to the crisis, a cohesive political voice was missing and many international actors lacked a thorough understanding of Kenya’s underlying political dynamics. This study concludes that the international development and diplomatic communities—by coming together and following good practice—significantly increased their influence over the political settlement following the 2008 crisis in Kenya.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · 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