MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151278013

The Military And The Challenge Of Democratic Consolidation In Nigeria: Positive Skepticism And Negative Optimism

2014· article· en· W2151278013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emmanuel O. Ojo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Political and Social Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyDemocratic consolidationPoliticsPolityPolitical scienceRespite careSkepticismPolitical economyDevelopment economicsLawSociologyDemocratizationMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nigeria like several other countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America depicted the picture of a ‘praetorian state’ or what Leo Dare called the ‘praetorian trap’. The reason for this nomenclature is not far fetched. The polity alternated between civilian and military administrations since her ‘flag independence’ in October 1960. The only respite so far is the uninterrupted civilian administration since May 29 1999, when the nascent democracy was inaugurated. Even at that, the risk of military intervention has not completely evaporated from the political firmament. The thrust of this paper, however, is an in-depth analysis of the role(s) of the military in democratic political transitions in post-colonial Nigeria. This study becomes imperative in the context of the military superimposed democratic transitions in Nigeria. In a nutshell the paper recognizes the fact that much as the military as an institution had been promoting democracy, they have also been truncating same – a kind of contradictory compatibility – thus making Nigeria laboratory for testing military role(s) in democratic transitions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.018
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicGlobal Political and Social DynamicsFrench-language works237,207