The Practice, Pitfalls, and Prospects of the Responsibility to Protect in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the end of the Cold War, Africa has witnessed a flourishing of diverse forms of external intervention and interference, including humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (RtoP) missions. Indeed, interventions have become a structural characteristic of today’s global politics as have the various challenges associated with these interventions. In spite of the pitfalls, Africa will likely witness more interventions. As evidence has shown from Libya, Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, as well as in other ongoing cases, highlights, RtoP interventions remain entangled between solving the problems of those conceptualized as beneficiaries and those conceptualized as targets. While there is a need to rethink the application of the RtoP, in general, it is imperative we reconsider what occurs during encounters between interveners and those intervened upon. Determining the success or failure of RtoP will remains partial until intervening nations take into account the role of local dynamics and varying cultural contexts, which inform social action, as well as the power relations between interveners and those intervened upon.
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 | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".