MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410454500 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2025.2504891

Grassroots Pan-Africanism: Border Lives and Transnational Belonging in the Lake Chad Basin

2025· article· en· W4410454500 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Mulugeta, Abdul-Hafiz Wando

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Studies and Geopolitics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilAfrican UnionUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsGrassrootsPolitical scienceStructural basinGeographyPoliticsGeologyGeomorphologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how grassroots Pan-Africanism is lived and practiced in the Lake Chad Basin (LCB), a region where borders function both as instruments of state control and as conduits for transnational connection. Drawing on interviews conducted across the LCB region, it traces how everyday cross-border interactions sustain regional solidarities that blur the boundaries of national identity. Rather than framing African borders solely as rigid enclosures or colonial relics, the article approaches them as fluid sites of negotiation – simultaneously regulating mobility and enabling forms of belonging that extend beyond the state. By foregrounding the lived experiences of borderland communities, it reframes Pan-Africanism as an everyday, improvisational practice rooted in mobility, resilience, and mutual dependence. In doing so, it contributes to broader debates on African integration, showing how regionalism is not only imagined by states but enacted from below.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.025
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicAfrican Studies and GeopoliticsFrench-language works237,207