MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1690651347 · doi:10.15353/joci.v8i3.3032

The Potential And Limits Of Mobile Phone Usage For Development In Africa: Innovation And Top-Down-Meets-Bottom-Up Partnering

2012· article· en· W1690651347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Hosman, Elizabeth Fife

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile phoneGrassrootsOrder (exchange)BusinessProcess (computing)PhoneTelecommunicationsSpringingTop-down and bottom-up designMobile telephonyMarketingComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The African continent currently boasts the highest mobile telephony growth rates in the world, bringing new communications possibilities to millions of people. The potential for mobile phones to reach a large and growing base of users across the continent, and be used for development-related purposes, is becoming widely recognized, evidenced by the growing number of development-oriented projects, applications, and programs that specifically make use of mobiles. Pent up demand and limited resources have led to innovative usage and services being developed at the grassroots level. Yet much remains to be done by governments in order to support further growth of telecommunications markets and services, while the private sector, non-profits, and academics all have an important role to play in the development process as well. The phenomenon of top-down-meeting-bottom up partnerships that are springing up across the continent offers the potential for cultivating the necessary feedback loops between various actors involved in the development process, in order to create relevant applications that meet real needs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207