ScholarOne - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS REFORM IN COMESA AND THE SADC: 1992 TO 2023
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
This study compares the efforts of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) towards electoral systems reform and how this is geared to ensuring peace and stability through constructive management of conflicts. Content analysis and a comparative historical research method was used for data collection. The study shows that the cases of poor electoral systems reform which had been sources of conflicts in both sub-regional organizations can be seen as consequent on the statesmen or differing factions not having given room for fair competition in their territorial jurisdiction. Using the state level theory of classical realism, the study argues that the quest for power accumulation by most statesmen or factions in SADC and COMESA makes it difficult to achieve electoral systems reform which thereby made electoral conflicts to prevail. This comparative evaluation can help in the constructive management of conflicts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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