MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612535829 · doi:10.7202/1038881ar

La lointaine origine de la gouvernance en Afrique : l’arbre à palabres

2017· article· fr· W2612535829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fweley Diangitukwa

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Gouvernance · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article s’attarde sur une origine méconnue de la gouvernance, la palabre africaine, afin de compléter les deux autres origines souvent citées, à savoir la corporate governance et la multi‐level governance. La palabre, en tant que lieu de rencontre et de discussion publique sans fin, remplit toutes les conditions pour être analysée comme le meilleur outil de politique publique utilisé dans les sociétés africaines traditionnelles. Cette pratique regroupe les acteurs venant de différents horizons, et couvre presque tous les domaines de la vie : tous les sujets sont publiquement discutés. La volonté générale qui se dégage des échanges est imposée aux parties. En Afrique, la palabre est l’équivalent de l’ « espace public » en Occident (voir Jürgen Habermas) ou encore de l’ « espace participatif ». Dans ce lieu, la vérité ne vient pas de l’autorité, mais elle résulte de la palabre qui met en scène le pouvoir et qui donne du sens au langage. Sans arrogance et sans mépris, l’un va à la rencontre de l’autre pour (r)établir la vérité afin de consolider les liens sociaux et l’unité. Ce texte se limite à présenter les manifestations de la palabre en Afrique subsaharienne dans ses rapports avec la gouvernance moderne.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue GouvernanceSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207