MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123989505 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12342064

Constitution Making in Eritrea: Why It Is Necessary to Go Back to the Future

2015· article· en· W3123989505 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joseph Magnet

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionGeopoliticsHuman rightsDemocracyLawPolitical sciencePower (physics)Rule of lawInternational lawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eritrea went through a constitutional process from 1995 to 1997, which resulted in a text that provides for the rule of law, democratic institutions and human rights. The text was ratified by the National Assembly, but never implemented. The United Nations, the usa and the eu support the 1997 Constitution. They have called on Eritrea to “(i)mplement (it) fully and without further delay”. This recommendation is challenged here. Eritrea is multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual. The 1997 Constitution creates a highly centralized Stalinist structure that experience teaches does not work in deeply diverse democracies. Eritrea requires a power sharing constitution, fabricated in a proper negotiated process. Implementing the 1997 Constitution would likely bring Eritrea’s two large nationalities into conflict with its eight smaller nationalities with high risk for violent civil strife that could spill over into neighbouring countries. This is concerning for geopolitics and would be devastating for human rights.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.029
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicAfrican history and culture analysisFrench-language works237,207