“Instrumentalize” the Assistance: The Changing Legitimacy of ingo s in Democratizing Tunisia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study provides two theoretical insights that contribute to the debate on the legitimacy of ingo s that promote democracy to intervene in the third countries’ political affairs. First, it argues that the level of legitimacy that political parties endow to ingo s depends on the “instrumental role” that ingo s play in bolstering the achievements of national partners’ goals and is not based on the values and norms that the ingo s promote. Second, it suggests that the degree of legitimacy that political parties grant to ingo s has to be understood as temporarily limited and context dependent. Using the case of ingo s involved in democracy promotion during the Tunisian democratization, this article argues that Tunisian political elites welcomed ingo s assistance during the initial phase of the democracy transition (2011–2014) because their assistance was helpful to enhance the establishment of democracy system and its procedures. The article suggests that since 2015, political parties are showing less enthusiasm about ingo s’ pressure and interference in national affairs because the action of ingo s is no longer useful to their political agenda.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".