MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

National Spatial Data Infrastructure in Botswana – An Overview

2014· article· en· W1858908827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lopang Maphale, Phalaagae Lucy

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial data infrastructureGovernment (linguistics)Independence (probability theory)Spatial analysisPrincipal (computer security)CurrencyBusinessEnvironmental resource managementGeographyComputer scienceEconomicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spatial data plays a vital role in any developmental activities whether it is natural resource management or socio-economic development. Most land-related government departments in Botswana have over the years since independence in 1966 developed systems to support their principal areas of operations as regards to spatial data. The adequacy and currency of spatial data in government operations improved leading to a need for integrated systems. This has progressively led to issues of building a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and an initiative modeled around Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) has been established. Several facilitative committees were set and several meetings held in attempt to develop the idea to a realizable level and integrate it into the greater workings of the national economy. This noble idea has stalled for some time now and it is the intention of this paper to report on how the idea was initiated in Botswana and look at the probable causes for its stalling. The paper will then go ahead and suggest what could be done to revitalize the idea by relating it to what is considered the best practices in Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) programmes globally.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.013
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciencesSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207