Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper argues that the adoption of the “Uti possedetis” Froze African boundaries making them to function as barriers. Though this division was denounced by African Heads of States and Governments little was done to revise these boundaries. This is understandable as this could have led to another “balkanization” of the continent. It is indicated that this division has led to the emergence of small states with small market economics competing rather than completing each others economy. It is argued that regional economic integration cannot take place with boundaries as obstacles. The Pan African idea of closer unity is examined. Regional economic integration is a stand of the Pan African perspectives is presented as a major way out of the deep and worsening economic crises bedeviling African economics. Attempts have been made since the 1960s to create and re-create institutions for regional economic integration in the continent. However, and in spite of the encouragement and boost given to sub-regional integration efforts as a first step towards continental integration, not much as been achieved. It is suggested that vigorous efforts should be made to reorientate the mind set of African leaders, scholars, and policy makers alike to the reality of economic integration and the near obsolescence of boundaries as barriers. The European experience of achieving continental unity through transboundary regionalism. (or Europe of the regions) (Eurogios) as evidence in the European union is instructive. It is concluded that like in Europe, potentials for regional economic integration, and African regions (or “Afregious”) can be converted to poles of economic development and integration. This would enhance not only economic development but would improve the standard of living of the citizens. Keywords: Panafricanism; Regional integration; Economic co-operation; Uti possedetis; International boundaries
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".