MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2288845286

A Comparative Analysis of the Mass Mobilizations of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya: What are the Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa?

2012· article· en· W2288845286 on OpenAlexaff
Binneh S. Minteh

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsIslamCorporate governanceTheme (computing)Political scienceDevelopment economicsPolitical economyGeographySociologyLawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent political events in North Africa emerged to be one of the most interesting paradigm shifts for a region widely known for its tradition and culture deeply embedded across its governance architectures. Traditionally, this part of our world has been known for its Geo-strategic importance, its economics of oil, and its cultural tradition of Islam.Whilst Islam is the predominant religion, there are also fragments of Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Coptic’s Eastern Orthodox, Druze and others. Yet, one of the most powerful models of political evolutions, one driven by non-violent- peaceful protest on one hand, and one by the strategic use of violence- emerged in the region as a historic anecdote in contemporary political thought. These models of political change could also be seen emerging across Sub-Saharan Africa.The paper approaches Tunisia, Egypt and Libya in North Africa with these comparative questions and objectives in mind. The central theme of the paper is to generate theoretical and practical inferences between the three North African countries, whilst looking at the origins/causes of mass mobilizations and its implication on politics and governance of Sub-Saharan Africa.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicAfrican history and culture studies→French-language works237,207→