Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explains how a project being implemented in peri-urban central Africa is coordinated from an office in Brussels. After an overview that addresses the conceptual challenges of defining ‘peri-urban’ and the question of why these social spaces are important from a development perspective, the article outlines ‘remote control research’ step-by-step: (i) conceptualisation, (ii) identification and recruitment of local experts, (iii) selection of research sites, (iv) the process of formulating a locally appropriate and detailed research protocol, (v) implementation and (vi) analysis of findings and presentation of results. The conclusion argues that research in central Africa will increasingly be influenced by donor priorities and will consequently need to respect the guidelines dictated by project cycle management strategies currently in vogue. The steps in the project cycle reflect the nature of the relationships between donors, researchers in the field and the intermediary project managers that link the two extremes. Accommodating the worldviews, expectations and constraints of these actors is something that, although not always easy, is possible when the right blend of conditions is respected.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".