Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically assesses the major contributions to the academic literature on China’s increased focus on Africa, from 2001 to 2011. It discusses the key trends concerning China’s presence in Africa and draws conclusions on the significance of the studies by emphasizing and contrasting the prevailing positions. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a qualitative approach using an integrative and comprehensive literature review, the authors performed a content analysis of high-impact, peer-reviewed papers. Findings – The paper questions and repositions some of the existing controversies. The results from existing studies remain questionable, requiring further clarification and more theoretical backing. It, moreover, highlights the notion that behind the explicit neutrality views of China’s presence in Africa, implicit assumptions may exist. These are often the differences in narratives conveyed by Western and Southern stakeholders. Research limitations/implications – Most of the conclusions drawn from this paper need to be re-explored and supported by additional research. This could be done by widening the scope of the analysis. Studies need to provide more empirical support for their assertions through quantitative data and evidence-based qualitative analyses – all within a framework that considers more cultural, social and historical dimensions. The paper also suggests that an institutionally based view appears most relevant in better explaining China in Africa. Originality/value – This paper reviews a decade of research on China in Africa and presents a snapshot of the current state of knowledge. It also raises concerns to be analyzed by future research and proposes new avenues for better understanding China’s presence in 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 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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".