Rethinking Religion and Ethnicity in Comparative Politics: Lessons from Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the extent to which existing approaches/theories in comparative politics have defined, referenced and integrated religion and ethnicity in their analysis. Religious and ethnic cleavages invite comparative politics scholars to interrogate an individual's attitudes, values, and beliefs in other to explain the differences and similarities we find among nations and peoples (Caramani 2011, 2009). Indeed, ethnic and religious cleavages play significant roles in shaping a person's world view and their political attitude. To answer important questions about the roles that ethnicity and religion play in comparative politics, this paper compares different approaches and theories of comparative politics, including modernization theory, rational choice, political culture, dependency theory, institutionalism, and poststructuralist theories. Thus, a consciousness of the influence that ethnic and religious identities have over an individual and a community also helps to solidify the relationship between theory and methods in comparative politics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".