Contending Weltanschauungen and the Shrinking of Democratic Spaces An Appraisals of Nigeria Democratic Practices-2015-2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ivan Krastev said “we are all living in Vladimir Putin’s world now”, where sheer force tramples over democratic rights. However, the travails of the liberal order is not only Putin’s Russia, China waits on the wings….Even the bastions of democracy like United States of America (USA) and United Kingdom (UK) are not left out. In them have arisen Rightwings populist in the guise of ‘America First’, which cumulated to the January 6, 2021 ‘insurrection’ in Washington and the Brexit brouhaha in UK. Nigeria being a member of the comity of nations is not antipathetic to this trend. Of the twelve largest democratic decline in the world, seven are in Sub-Saharan Africa and Nigeria is number five. It had been noted that Democratic practise in Nigeria is a hybrid: civil rule, militarism, and ethnic jingoism. In a recent poll by Statista, 77.2% of Nigerians agree that Nigeria democracy is flawed. This paper interrogates the democratic reversal in Nigeria using the Realist Balance of Power (BoP) Framework in the midst of contending Weltanschauungen. The paper argues that Russia and China’s contrary worldview to democratic norms has given countries democratic trade-offs, which have engendered democratic reversal worldwide, Nigeria inclusive. The paper recommends continuous vigilance by Nigerian’s civil societies and others, to insist that democratic tenets are upheld always, as exemplified by their insistence for the signing of the 2022 Electoral Law. Data were collated through documentary methods; these qualitative data were transcribed, interpreted, and analysed through systematic logical deductions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".