Multiparty Democracy, Social Cohesion, and Human Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Conceptual Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes some assumptions regarding the complex relationship between multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa. A conceptual framework was used to map out this relationship. We assumed that because multiparty democracy is relatively new in Africa and increasingly challenging for most countries, its relationship with human development may neither be proximal, nor positive. With respect to social cohesion, we assumed that a socially cohesive society is more likely than a non-cohesive one to promote human development. Further, we assumed that although multiparty democracy is susceptible to exerting a negative or weak effect on human development, the relationship may be mitigated by the level of social cohesion. The immediate implication of this assumption is that multiparty democracy is likely to improve the well-being of the populations of sub-Saharan Africa if the degree of social cohesion is relatively high. The proffered assumptions may be of great interest for practitioners and researchers in human development studies and other relevant fields.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".