The Effect of Open Letters on the Perceptions of Electoral Accountability and National Sovereignty - A Study of Adichie’s & Oke’s Post-Election Letters to the American Governments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactions in Nigeria to Adichie’s letter to the US President after the election were mixed, particularly leading to a reactive letter from Oke to the US President and Canadian Prime Minister. The complexity and diversity of Nigerian politics, as well as the challenges of striking a healthy balance between the demands for openness and accountability and the worries about national sovereignty and outside interference, is illuminated by an in-depth analysis of the perspectives and perceptions held by Nigerians with regard to the 2023 presidential elections outcome that prompted the letters. Hence, the study on reconciling the conflicting perceptions of electoral accountability versus national sovereignty in Adichie’s and Oke’s post-election letters to the American governments aims to present a variety of Nigerians’ perspectives in regards to the outcome of the presidential election, to consider the alleged electoral malpractices in the Election and how these prompted the letters to the American governments and to reconcile the conflicting perspectives of openness/accountability (Adichie’s Letter) and national sovereignty/interference (Oke’s Letter). The study is built on the frame of the agenda-setting theory. The paradigmatic analysis method is employed and the study’s discourse is further divided into four paradigms. The study concludes that all matters must be handled on the basis of deliberate patriotism and without any sentiment of ethnic biases as was perceived by Nigerians in order to resolve the tension between Adichie and Oke’s letters, which present opposing views on the importance of openness and accountability and the value of independence and national sovereignty, respectively.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".