Road map for research on responsible artificial intelligence for development (AI4D) in African countries: The case study of agriculture
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals from a diverse range of backgrounds are increasingly engaging in research and development in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). The main activities, although still nascent, are coalescing around three core activities: innovation, policy, and capacity building. Within agriculture, which is the focus of this paper, AI is working with converging technologies, particularly data optimization, to add value along the entire agricultural value chain, including procurement, farm automation, and market access. Our key takeaway is that, despite the promising opportunities for development, there are actual and potential challenges that African countries need to consider in deciding whether to scale up or down the application of AI in agriculture. Input from African innovators, policymakers, and academics is essential to ensure that AI solutions are aligned with African needs and priorities. This paper proposes questions that can be used to form a road map to inform research and development in this area.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it