MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964868979 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2019.1634605

Horizontal inequalities and ethno-religious conflicts in Jos metropolis, North-Central Nigeria

2019· article· en· W2964868979 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Onyekachi E. Nnabuihe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityPoliticsHausaColonialismSociologyGovernment (linguistics)FeelingPolitical sciencePolitical economyGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prolonged political struggles and perceived horizontal inequalities between Christian Afizere, Anaguta and Berom against Muslim Hausa and Fulani in Jos metropolis, North-Central Nigeria have boosted feelings of difference between the two groups and ignited convulsive bloody conflicts. This article analyses the discourses of horizontal inequalities and how they stimulated the protracted ethno-religious conflict in Jos metropolis and beyond. It discusses how socio-historical forces and conditions, in this case colonial and post-colonial policies and politics, spurred horizontal inequalities and how such inequality fanned the embers of ethno-religious conflicts. Relying on interviews, focus group discussions, archival documents and relevant secondary sources, the paper contends that the conflicts are clear manifestations of historical traditions of unequal access to political offices, economic resources, cultural resources and education in Jos and cities of central Nigeria, and that the government that should mediate in the conflicts has been intermeshed in them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africainesSame topicPolitical Conflict and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207