The impact of the Arab Spring on the Jordanian political reform process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated recent Jordanian reforms arising from the 'Arab Spring'. There were no large-scale protests, though political, social and economic reforms were externally-induced and internally-inspired. Jordan is atypical of reforms in Arab regimes and exemplifies characteristics that have shaped the trajectory of Arab regimes reforms. A different pattern emerged reflecting a gradual reform process that disguises the gap between rhetoric and actuality. Reforms were undertaken to pursue modernisation with a hybrid style of democratisation. This research used the testimony of Jordanian key informants to place in context the unique features of Jordanian society. A qualitative methodology, using semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and secondary sources was used to explain the reform process, as influenced by political party leaders, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), diplomats and senior government officials. The findings characterises the Jordanian reform process as the Liberal Jordanian Leadership Theory. Liberal Jordanian Leadership is a style of governance maintained by the Monarchy which balances the political and social measures necessary for long-term stability by combining internal and external factors influencing the contemporary reforms. These factors are the Arab Spring, the social media, MB, CSOs, Jordan's political parties, US foreign policy, regional factors and the Monarchy. Consequently, the constitution and economic plans have adapted to the new challenges. The result is a break with historical tradition and more dynamic Jordanian political process. Political reform in Jordan was supported by the Regime since the beginning of the 'Arab Spring'. In this, Jordan is unique, as it experienced a process of reforms and achievements reflecting its specific history, government system, economy and society.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".