Revisiting the Legality of the Union between the Republic of Tanganyika and the People’s Republic of Zanzibar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While every year the people of the United Republic of Tanzania witness the new anniversary of the Union between the former Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, this paper intends to examine how strong its legal foundation stands. The union was established by the two leaders; Nyerere for Tanganyika and Karume for Zanzibar. After their signatures, the agreement was required for ratification at Zanzibar and Tanganyika legislative bodies. Only Tanganyika ratified. Surprisingly, even though Zanzibar did not ratify, the union was made. On this background foundation, the union legality has been repeatedly criticized. While those who question the legality of the union stick on the point of ratification, those who consider its legitimacy, assert that the question of validity has waned due to the period the union has survived. The findings in this article argue otherwise, in fact, the issue has grown to such extent that it haunts everyone in Tanzania.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".