MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487778480 · doi:10.1057/9780230116436_2

ZANU-PF and MDC Power-Sharing: Zimbabwe Still at a Crossroads?

2011· book-chapter· en· W2487778480 on OpenAlexaff
Siphamandla Zondi

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues
Canadian institutionsThe North South Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPresidential systemPolitical scienceDiplomacyDemocracyPolitical economyDevelopment economicsState (computer science)SociologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For nine years Zimbabwe descended into an abyss of a political-cum-economic crisis. This led to a gradual decline of the economy, political polarization, and the disintegration of the state. During all this time, neither loud diplomacy by the West, nor “quiet” diplomacy by African states could lead Zimbabwe out of the conflict. With the signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) between the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) factions in September 2008, Zimbabwe finally edged closer to finding the long-elusive political settlement and a formula for establishing a new political and economic dispensation. Four months earlier Zimbabwe had witnessed relatively free and fair elections for the first time in many years, only for the situation to degenerate again into an orgy of political violence and intolerance in the run-up to the presidential runoff elections in June 2008. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issuesFrench-language works237,207