MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038342101 · doi:10.1163/2211906x-00902004

A Conceptual Framework for Regulating Customary Law within Pluralistic African States: Reassessing Justice Sector Reforms for Reconciling Legal Traditions

2020· article· en· W3038342101 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Ynès Ada Tchoukou

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Comparative Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawDualismLegal pluralismPoliticsDemocracyLaw and economicsComparative lawSociologyLegal realism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Customary law and traditional institutions once constituted the comprehensive legal system regulating a wide spectrum of activities within African states. However, colonialism created a framework for the politics of legal dualism, which led to a process of transformation and shift in the nature of structures and practices of states. As such, now independent states are constantly trying to identify ways to sustain the cultural heritage reflected in customary laws and institutions, as they attempt to also function as modern democratic states. Scholars have highlighted the practical and structural changes that need to be made to ensure effective regulation of customary law. To this work, my paper provides a framework to supplement current judicial reforms within African states. I argue that for customary law to be effectively used as a mechanism for legal regulation within cultural communities, the current legal framework within African states needs to move beyond the idea of legal recognition and tolerance, to one that reconciles the complexities of different legal traditions.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.053
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Comparative LawSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207