MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901741857 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v11n4p17

Principle of Loyal Opposition: The Case of Political Parties in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic

2018· article· en· W2901741857 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olu Awofeso, Paul A. Irabor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)DemocracyPoliticsDutyCriticismPolitical sciencePolitical economyLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern understandings of democracy not only suggest a regime in which those who govern are selected through contested elections, but more fundamentally, a system of government in which parties lose elections. Yet, the mechanism of vertical accountability whereby the people can hold the ruling government responsible depends on parties in opposition providing choices for voters while remaining loyal to the idea of governmental power. Adopting the principle of loyal opposition as the basis of this study in the Nigerian context, we try to interrogate whether the duty to serve as “government in-waiting’’ equally affects how the duty to critique the actions of the government is performed. The study further probed; can a ruling party cope with the criticism of the opposition party? To answer these questions, the study argued that it is tempting not to assume that, the institution of political party is still at its lowest ebb despite the successful democratic transition in Nigeria since 1999, and the alternation of political power resulting in the change of party in government from the People’s Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress in 2015. These issues have consequences for the principle of loyal opposition and democratic stability in Nigeria.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207