Power-sharing between adoptability and durability insights from Lebanon and Iraq
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
Under what conditions do power-sharing agreements come into being? Once agreed, how might an agreement’s perceived acceptability affect its ability to deliver functional governance and durable peace? Using power-sharing provisions as our unit of analysis, and drawing from elite interviews and textual analysis of foundational documents in the cases of Lebanon and Iraq, we analyse three challenges at the nexus of adoptability and durability: bargaining constraints, time inconsistency problems, and variations in institutional strength. We show, with illustrative examples of provisions such as the design of federal units, the creation of second chambers, and efforts at deconfessionalization, adoptability is a through-line in the life of a power-sharing agreement, extending beyond the moment of adoption and affecting the long-term durability of the system. We also consider the lessons for Syria, where a political transition that might yet entail some form of power-sharing, is underway.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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