MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969911490 · doi:10.7202/021177ar

Evolution of Inter-Community Boundaries in Africa

2005· article· en· W1969911490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ọmọlade Adejuyigbe

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Studies and Geopolitics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierBoundary (topology)Stage (stratigraphy)Core (optical fiber)Political scienceGeographyEconomic geographyLawGeologyComputer sciencePaleontologyMathematicsTelecommunicationsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amodel of the evolution of inter-community boundaries in Africa is presented. It is assumed that adjacent communities have different cores from which they progressively explore and interact in the frontier between them. The boundary is not fixed before there is effective occupation of the frontier and its evolution can be visualized in different stages : (i) expansion stage when the communities spread out from their different core areas ; (ii) contact stage when explorers and migrants come against physical or human hinderances to their expansion ; (iii) stabilization stage when each side lays exclusive claim to parts of the frontier from which it seeks to exclude the other. Attempt to exclude others may lead to conflicts on rights to sections of the frontier ; (iv) allocation stage when adjacent members of different communities resolve disputes arising from stabilisation and agree on the boundary between them; (v) delimitation stage when the entire length of the boundary between two communities is agreed upon and defined ; (vi) demarcation stage when the boundary is surveyed and marked ; (vii) administration stage during which the boundary is periodically supervised. Examples of real situations in Western Nigeria are used to illustrate each stage of the model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du QuébecSame topicAfrican Studies and GeopoliticsFrench-language works237,207