Politiser ou privatiser l’ethnie ? Réflexion à propos du bien commun en Afrique postcoloniale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En raison de fortes tensions ethniques qui le mettent en branle, l’État en Afrique vit un délitement du tissu collectif. Dans un contexte de pluralisme ethnique fort, la négation de ce pluralisme par la politique d’assimilation a eu pour effet contraire l’édification d’un sectarisme ethnique donnant lieu à une instabilité socio-politique. En réaction, la prise en considération institutionnelle de l’ethnie n’a pu empêcher cette instabilité. Oscillant ainsi entre politique d’assimilation et naturalisation normative de l’ethnie, l’État y vit une crise du bien commun. Le présent article vise à montrer que la gestion du pluralisme ethnique en Afrique ne saurait se réduire à de simples dispositions politico-juridiques. Il s’agit bien plutôt de promouvoir la perspective de la postcommunauté qui vient fédérer trois types de mobilisations enchevêtrées : l’une relative à la conscience, l’autre à la participation de toutes les composantes communautaires au bien commun, enfin celle relative aux nouvelles responsabilités de l’État.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".