MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173458187 · doi:10.1080/13600826.2021.1947783

Nigeria’s ‘Border Diplomacy’: Rhetoric or Substance for Regional Hegemonic Leadership?

2021· article· en· W3173458187 on OpenAlexaff
Olusola Ogunnubi, Oladotun E. Awosusi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricDiplomacyHegemonyForeign policyIndependence (probability theory)Political economyPolitical scienceSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following independence in 1960, Nigeria intentionally crafted a ‘big brother' honorific title for itself inspired by a Pan-Africanist Afrocentric ideology which it pursues through altruistic sharing of its human, military and economic resources. Successive governments have internalized this Africa-focused foreign policy thrust to establish a putative regional influence in Africa. However, despite belatedly signing the African Continental Free Trade Agreement which seeks to increase intra-African trade and introducing a novel visa-on-arrival policy for African passport holders, the porosity of Nigeria's boundaries continues to pose a threat and has led to the closure of land borders with its West African neighbours in August 2019. This article examines the implications of Nigeria's schizophrenic ‘border diplomacy' for its continental leadership and argues that the substance and rhetoric of the country's border diplomacy represent a foreign policy interest which prioritizes its people, economy and national security while normatively extending Nigeria’s hegemonic leadership in Africa.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal SocietySame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207