MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941122699 · doi:10.1080/02508060.2019.1594576

Water governance research in Africa: progress, challenges and an agenda for research and action

2019· article· en· W2941122699 on OpenAlexaff
Ayodele Olagunju, Gladman Thondhlana, Jania S. Chilima, Aby Sène-Harper, W. R. Nadège Compaoré, Ehimai Ohiozebau

Bibliographic record

VenueWater International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersErnest Oppenheimer Memorial Trust
KeywordsCorporate governanceScopusContext (archaeology)Political scienceAction researchConceptual frameworkScale (ratio)Environmental planningEnvironmental resource managementRegional scienceBusinessSociologyGeographySocial scienceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Africa has not received adequate attention in the growing number of studies on water governance. Using the Scopus database, 492 peer-reviewed articles published since 2000 on water governance across the continent were reviewed and informed the perspectives presented in this study. In addition to characterizing temporal and topical trends, our analysis highlights three dominant conceptual themes in existing studies – institutional, discursive and technical – and three crosscutting challenges of systemic, socio-environmental and research–policy divides. The study provides baseline information that can stimulate the development of scale-appropriate and policy-relevant research in the context of Africa’s unique water challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.020
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0240.031
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater InternationalSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207