MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243883180 · doi:10.1108/oxan-db199907

South Africa infrastructure 'boom' may underwhelm

2015· other· en· W4243883180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerald expert briefings · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHIV/AIDS Impact and Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoomPort (circuit theory)UrbanizationInvestment (military)Quarter (Canadian coin)BusinessGovernment (linguistics)Urban infrastructureCritical infrastructureService (business)FinanceState (computer science)Economic growthEconomic policyEconomicsUrban planningGeographyEngineeringPolitical sciencePoliticsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject Infrastructure outlook for South Africa. Significance Earlier this month PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that South Africa will account for a third of all sub-Saharan Africa's estimated 180 billion dollars in infrastructure investment to 2025. Yet even this is likely to be insufficient to address years of neglect, particularly of urban and basic service infrastructure. Preference for 'mega', state-funded projects could deflect attention from more prosaic but essential needs. Impacts Concern over poor service delivery could cost the ruling ANC key cities such as Port Elizabeth in the 2016 local government polls. Fiscal strains will drive a clampdown on anti-competitive behaviour in the building industry, which has previously heightened costs. Large cities are likely to turn to bond markets to raise funding for infrastructure expansion and upgrades necessitated by urbanisation. Power outages will dampen already low growth -- 1.3% in the first quarter 2015 -- especially in job-rich sectors such as manufacturing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerald expert briefingsSame topicHIV/AIDS Impact and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207