MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964893081 · doi:10.1080/10228195.2018.1553993

Politics and Power in Southern Ethiopia: Imposing, Opposing and Calling for Linguistic Unity

2019· article· en· W2964893081 on OpenAlexaff
Logan Cochrane, Yeshtila W. Bekele

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Matters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsOpposition (politics)PoliticsUnificationSociologySituational ethicsPower (physics)Language policyState (computer science)Period (music)Government (linguistics)Political economyPolitical scienceLinguisticsPublic administrationLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2018 there were demands for the creation of new regional states in Ethiopia by ethnolinguistic groups seeking greater self-determination. Two examples of this were the Sidama and Wolaita, with some members of the latter advocating for the creation of an “Omotic Peoples” regional state. The idea of Omotic unification is not new to southern Ethiopia. When the amalgamated language of Wogagoda was introduced in the 1990s, the peoples of the region rallied in opposition against government. This article explores the intersection of language, politics and power during that period, which resulted in the withdrawal of a language policy and the creation of new, disintegrated administrative structures. Drawing upon historical experiences, this article reflects on the role of ethno-linguistic identities and their implications for contemporary decision making about languages of instruction and administrative boundaries. The results provide insight into situational contexts that may enable or constrain bottom-up and top-down language policy processes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage MattersSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207