Media–state relations in Burundi: Overview of a post-traumatic media ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an analysis of the relations between the state and the media in Burundi, this article aims to problematise these actors’ interactions within a context characterised by an asymmetry of power in favour of political authorities and some leeway enjoyed by the media. Through a review of a corpus constituted of scientific literature, reports documenting the situation of press freedom in the country, and newspaper articles, the present article shows that the legal framework governing media activity is rather protective of press freedom, despite some recent setbacks. Under this protective media context, the state uses a variety of devious means to strengthen its grip on the media sector and on journalists. The media, for their part, are obliged to manoeuvre in a post-traumatic context where issues of security have a strong public legitimacy. The article shows that in order to understand relations between the Burundian state and the media, it is necessary to place them in an asymmetrical power context where both face constraints and enjoy spaces of tactical intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".