MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076594989 · doi:10.3167/reco.2013.030308

Round table report: Advancing regional social integration, social protection, and the free movement of people in Southern Africa

2013· article· en· W2076594989 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorenzo Fioramonti

Bibliographic record

VenueRegions & Cohesion · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHIV/AIDS Impact and Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionRegional integrationPolitical scienceCorporate governanceFree movementPoliticsPublic administrationSocial movementEconomic growthGeographyManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The round table on “Advancing regional social integration, social protection, and free movement of people in Southern Africa” was organized as part of the conference “Regional governance of migration and social policy: Comparing European and African regional integration policies and practices” held at the University of Pretoria (South Africa) on 18–20 April 2012, at which the articles in this special issue were first presented. The discussion was moderated by Prince Mashele of the South African Centre for Politics and Research and the participants included: Yitna Getachew, IOM Regional Representative for Southern Africa, Migration Dialogue for Southern Africa (MIDSA); Jonathan Crush, University of Cape Town and Balsillie School of International Affairs, Canada, representing the Southern Africa Migration Program (SAMP); Vic van Vuuren, Director of Southern African ILO; Vivienne Taylor, South Africa Planning Commission; Sergio Calle Norena, Deputy Regional Representative of UNHCR; Laurent De Boeck, Director, ACP Observatory on Migration, Brussels; Wiseman Magasela, Deputy Director General Social Policy, South African Department of Social Development; and Sanusha Naidu, Open Society Foundation for South Africa.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegions & CohesionSame topicHIV/AIDS Impact and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207