Entre les plans d’émergence sans vision et des visions sans émergence : la difficile appropriation par l’Afrique de ses trajectoires de développement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet entretien, Kako Nubukpo livre un regard de chercheur et de praticien sur la place des plans dans les sociétés africaines contemporaines. Élaborées hors du continent, les ingénieries du développement sont hors-sol, et les statistiques employées pour orienter les politiques publiques opaques et souvent indisponibles. Les discours sur l’« émergence africaine » servent d’alibi à des régimes qui formulent des programmes irréalistes. Pourtant, à l’heure où de nombreux pays africains disposent de plans quinquennaux, l’élaboration des plans peut ouvrir des espaces dans lesquels les demandes adressées aux États par divers groupes sociaux trouvent à s’exprimer. La planification peut permettre d’élaborer des politiques alternatives. Néanmoins, elle peut aussi être un outil pour des régimes dont la tentation est d’opter pour un développement sans démocratie.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".