MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250531023 · doi:10.1080/02589001.2017.1365117

Whose ‘West Africa’? The regional dynamics of peace and security

2017· article· en· W4250531023 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Charbonneau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary African Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeConstruct (python library)TerrorismHuman securityIntervention (counseling)Meaning (existential)Political scienceDynamics (music)Conflict managementInternational relationsSociologyDevelopment economicsPoliticsLawEpistemologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The articles of this Special Issue show how theoretical perspectives, normative frames, discursive strategies and conceptual issues shape, and are shaped by, intervention practices and the dynamics of peace and security in West Africa. As they construe and construct understandings of West African conflicts, they impact and justify conflict management practices. Put another way, how one defines the region called West Africa is not disassociated from one’s understanding of peace and security. The concepts are mutually constitutive. The increasing significance awarded to ‘radicalisation’ and ‘terrorism’ said to be coming from the Sahel suggests how practices of security do not simply respond to ‘threats’ somehow, somewhere, in ‘West Africa’. As the focus on international intervention moves north toward the Sahel, it transforms the meaning and formation of West African states and the West African region as it connects them to the extra-regional dynamics from the ‘Sahel’ and ‘North 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary African StudiesSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207