SOUTH SUDAN STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE, AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS FOR AFRICA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sudan survived different external rules, at least starting from 1821, when it became a part of the Egyptian Ottomans. Egypt played an important role in the colonial expansion as an agent of the Otto-mans. The rulers of Egypt were Turkish-speaking governing bodies that dominated Egypt since the medieval period. The Arab-Islamic movement known as Mahdist Movement at first was considered a liberator, but turned out to be a political machine of Arabization, Islamization and slavery during its brutal rule in 1881-1889. The Mahdist government of this Islamic theocratic rule was defeated by the Anglo-Egyptian army in 1889. The Anglo-Egyptians rule in Sudan lasted from 1898 to 1956, and was known as a condominium. The colonial rulers, without any consultations with the Southern Sudan peoples, handover power to the Northern Sudanese political elite, which kindled an atrocious conflict between the Southerners and the new rulers from the north. The refusal of the Southerners to be ruled by their Northern neighbors unleashed the first Sudan war (1955-1972). This violent conflict ended with the signing of the agreement, according to which South Sudan gained autonomy to administer its own affairs within the Sudan state. The autonomy was abrogated unilaterally by the central government in 1983 due to the discovery of the oil deposits in the south of the country in 1978 by a Canadian company, and the central government of Sudan did not wish to share profits with the South. The second Sudan war (1983-2005) ended with the independence of South Sudan (2011), which opened doors for changing the colonial borders of Africa. Thus, the article consid-ers regional and international role of the South Sudanese struggle for independence and its implications for the liberation of other countries of the continent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".