African Quest for Development and Chinese Strategic Policy in the Continent: Myth or Reality in a Developmental Path in the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilateral or multilateral relationships among nations or regional blocs are changing rapidly.For instance, Chinese interest in Africa, which began since the early part of the 21st Century, have assumed incredible dimensions.Since then, the growing Chinese footprints in Africa have orchestrated various debates within the academia and public policy experts, describing their relationship as a "major geopolitical feature" in this era of a globalised world.A situation that calls for understanding of the nature of their relationship with a view of creating an integrated African policy framework to tackle perceived negative trends of Chinese role in the Continent vis-à-vis the developmental challenges of African States.Such views have been quite diverse and contentious over the years.Quite a number of views suggests that China's new relationship with the Continent is a substitute to Western relationship that can offer the needed partnership for the most needed economic growth and infrastructural development of African States.This position informed the initiative called the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in the year 2000, and its subsequent formation in 2010 with the ultimate objective of implementing both political and economic programmes in Africa (Stahl, 2016).Available records show that China have implemented two coherent policies on Africa between 2006 and 2015.Against this backdrop, came the warnings of some scholars as well as States to African States to be wary of such Chinese benevolence.The West championed by Washington and Brussels were among such active voices.From the two extreme viewpoints, lies the desire of this paper to analyse holistically, Chinese strategic policy outcomes vis-à-vis the African development needs from 2014 to date.The intention is to contribute to the ongoing debate about Africa-China relations vis-à-vis the development needs of the Continent.Such holistic analytical approach will further expose the potential impact of the Chinese strategic policy outcomes and the extent of development of African States.Interestingly, the paper will be able to throw open to African States of the choice to doing business with whomever they like based on their development challenges or needs per time and not because of colonial ties or linkages.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".