Bridging research across the subfields of international relations and comparative politics: The case of a secessionist movement in Southern Sudan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article demonstrates the potential for rigorous and systematic bridging research across the subfields of comparative politics and international relations. Examining the issue of secessionist movements and a detailed case study of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), the article contends that understanding both ‘domestic’ and ‘international’ issues are crucial for such a study. In the case of Sudan, it is found that external forces significantly influenced the direction of the secessionist movement and the conflict itself. In particular, the paper documents the involvement of Kenya, Egypt, the United States of America, Multinational Corporations extracting oil and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) concerned with human rights violations. The article concludes by asserting that it is imperative to incorporate tools of analysis from both subfields in order to comprehensively understand and explain the case study at hand and international issues such as secession more broadly. Key words: Secession, Sudan, civil conflict, comparative politics, international relations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".