MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039193361 · doi:10.1080/03057070.2020.1778901

Botswana Votes 2019: Two-Party Competition and the Khama Factor

2020· article· en· W3039193361 on OpenAlex
Chris Brown

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Southern African Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth African History and Culture
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)BallotDemocracyRealigning electionParliamentPolitical economyPoliticsSuccessor cardinalPolitical scienceProportional representationDominance (genetics)Lower housePrimary electionSingle non-transferable votePublic administrationGeneral electionLawVotingSociologySocialism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The October 2019 Botswana national election, which returned the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) to power for the twelfth consecutive time, was dominated by a man whose name was not even on the ballot: former President Ian Khama. In an unprecedented move, Khama had broken with the BDP, a party he had led as president for 10 years, to form a new political party and to campaign against his successor, President Mokgweetsi Masisi. A highly controversial figure, Khama was none the less embraced by the main opposition coalition, the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC). Although the ‘Khama factor’ helped the UDC in some parts of the country, the decision to work with Khama proved overall to be a major strategic blunder by the opposition, which suffered a decline in its vote share and its representation in parliament. Paradoxically, despite the continued electoral dominance of the BDP, the election reinforces a long-standing trend toward the emergence of a competitive two-party system in Botswana.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.248 · 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