MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191752866 · doi:10.1080/10246029.2021.1956982

Russo-African Relations and electoral democracy: Assessing the implications of Russia's renewed interest for Africa

2021· article· en· W3191752866 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Security Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyPolitical sciencePoliticsPolitical economyDisengagement theoryScrutinyPower (physics)Development economicsSociologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After decades of diplomatic disengagement from Africa, Russia is making a strong bid to facilitate bilateral relations with more African states. Many analysts regard this as an attempt to project power and influence outside of Russia's immediate borders in Eastern Europe and to whittle down the West's influence in Africa. The deepening ties between Russia and African states have led to the incursion of Russian political operatives and disinformation experts who have meddled in the political and electoral processes of countries such as Zimbabwe, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, while Russian election interference in advanced western democracies has attracted extensive scholarly interest, similar meddling by Russian agents on the African continent has been subject to little scrutiny. This article sheds light on the methods used by Russian political operatives to meddle in elections in Africa. It concludes that Russia's renewed interest in Africa could have grave consequences for democracy on the continent if left unchecked.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.225 · 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