“Weak State”, Regional Power, Global Player: Nigeria and the Response to Boko Haram
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the literature explaining Nigeria’s failure to counter the Boko Haram insurgency since 2009 has focused on the country’s internal governance, drawing on variations of the “weak state” concept. In this article, we argue that analysts also need to examine Nigeria’s international relations for a more critical explanation of why it took over five years to eventually halt the violent group’s territorial expansion and regular commission of atrocities. Through analysis of primary documents from various institutions involved in responding to Boko Haram between 2010 to 2015, and elite interviews with academics, security officials and other analysts, this article argues that Nigeria’s relatively powerful regional and global positions effectively precluded coercive international intervention and, in doing so, reduced external pressure on Abuja to act more decisively to counter this major threat to security at the human, national and regional levels. Thus, we demonstrate that so-called “weak” states that are simultaneously powerful internationally can manage pressure for action on violence occurring inside their borders.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it