Rwanda-Uganda relations: elites’ attitudes and perceptions in interstate relations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rwanda and Uganda have had strained relations, oscillating between warm, lukewarm, hostile and outright war. Since the biggest falling out during the Second Congo War (1998–2003), both governments have variously accused each other of wrongdoing, including allegations of supporting rebel activities, covert counterintelligence operations and espionage. The most recent escalation in frosty relations saw the closure of Katuna border post. Because the respective ruling parties – the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the National Resistance Movement – at a minimum have shared ideological and historical origins, we would expect relations to be strong and constructive not hostile or tenuous. Yet, it is precisely the shared history and social ties among the politico-military and intelligence elites that shape the suspicion, mistrust and hostility that feed into official policies. This article analyses how shared ideological and historical origins, social relations and kindred ties inform individual attitudes and perceptions of key elites toward each other’s government.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it