MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983612034 · doi:10.1061/9780784478745.042

Meeting the Infrastructure Challenges of African Cities

2014· article· en· W1983612034 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Hoornweg, Katherine Sierra, Michael R. Sanio, Kim D. Pressnail

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationUnderpinningEconomic growthPopulationUrban planningWorld populationScale (ratio)GeographyBusinessDeveloping countryEconomicsEngineeringCivil engineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, less than 10% of the world's urban population lives in African cities. By the end of this century that ratio is on track to swell to more than a third of the world's total (a growth of 2.2 billion urban residents). Today, just seven of the world's 100 largest cities are in Africa, by 2050 that will increase to 21, and by 2100, 40 of the world's 100 largest cities are expected to be in Africa and five of the world's largest 10 cities will be in Africa, each with more than 50 million residents. In addition to the $20 trillion needed over the next 40 years to build the cities for more than 2 billion people, by 2040 Africa also needs the equivalent of about 600,000 engineer graduates per year to design and manage the services underpinning these cities. When assessing Africa's urbanization trends and the acute need for finance, stability of macroeconomic and social conditions, institutional strengthening, efficient urban form, and capacity - this paper asserts that a critical need is capacity, especially domestic engineering capacity. The scale of Africa's capacity needs will necessitate new models of collaboration and urban management.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207