The Arab Spring Crisis and the Democratic Trend in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims at pin-pointing the effect of the Arab Spring as one of the external factors, that affected the Jordanian political regime during the period(2011-2017) at the different political, economic, security and social levels and concentrate on its effect on the democratic structure in Jordan , and how to reinforce indicators of democratic trend in Jordan. Where the study refuged to use the method of analyzing systems to test the main hypothesis of study in considering the external factor play an effective role either negative, or positive in enhancing indicators of the state democratic trend.The study deduced a result states that the Arab Spring formed a positive and negative factor in the democratic trend in Jordan, from part of the influence of the political instability in reinforcing the political will for the Jordanian decision-maker in the dedication of reform indicators and democratic trend, and in return the precariousness’s of the Arab Spring formed a negative factor in increasing problems of the political, economic, and social structures, the thing that formed an obstacle in front of reform and democratic trend. Also the study recommended with the necessity of concern about the other indicators and reinforcing the effectiveness of associations of the civil community, and respect of human rights, the economic development, the political and social stability, and culture and democratic practice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".