Bibliographic record
Abstract
[In Ghana] a class of African businessmen, supplied with African capital … did not exist. [Instead,] there had arisen the large petty bourgeois stratum … which was able to step into the power vacuum caused by the absence of a true African capitalist class. In contrast with South Africa and Mauritius, Ghana's economic history has been marked by an unhealthily close relationship between the fraternal worlds of money and power. In what later became south and central Ghana, an ongoing entanglement of political and economic elites was epitomized in the institutions of the pre-colonial Asante empire and colonialism did not necessarily disarticulate these linkages. Following independence, Kwame Nkrumah and the ruling Congress People's Party (CPP) institutionalized the dominance of the political sphere over the economic, consolidating a neo-patrimonial fusion of economic and political elites. This was not inevitable. Given certain similarities, it is not unthinkable that Ghana's development might have more closely resembled South Africa's: like South Africa, Ghana had a leading sector (cocoa in Ghana's case) which might have provided the basis for the development of an assertive, indigenous economic class. Ultimately, however, successive Ghanaian governments over-exploited that sector before it was yet strong enough to defend its interests. Instead of growing out of a profitable and market-driven cocoa sub-sector, much of Ghana's business class would emerge instead from a profoundly state-driven economy. And given that the state in question rapidly became neo-patrimonial, this pattern of development severely compromised the nature of the local capitalist class.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".