MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020830736 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2019.1700814

Comprendre Boko Haram à partir d’une perspective historique, locale et régionale

2020· article· fr· W3020830736 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Studies and Geopolitics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉCe numéro spécial s’intéresse à l’insurrection de Boko Haram dans les pays du bassin tchadien en se concentrant essentiellement sur les dynamiques locales, d’une part, en regardant au-delà de la perspective sensationnaliste et à court terme des médias, et d’autre part, en explorant des thèmes qui transcendent le temps et les frontières disciplinaires. Notre postulat de base est que la lecture des actions de Boko Haram à travers le prisme des termes aujourd’hui à la mode tels que “terroristes” ou “djihadistes,” ne peut offrir qu’une perspective limitée du phénomène. Plutôt qu’un modèle superficiel dérivé de la pensée de la “guerre contre le terrorisme,” les approches développées par les auteurs de ce dossier thématique se concentrent non seulement sur les facteurs religieux, mais aussi sur la violence de l’État et les facteurs sociaux, politiques et économiques qui soutiennent l’adhésion à l’insurrection, ce qui présente un parallèle avec les “bandits sociaux.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.222 · 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