Towards Minimizing Research Inequities in Africa: Lessons from the ARISE Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an ambitious development blueprint called Agenda 2063, Africa is on a mission to creating the ‘Africa We Want’ by the year 2063, centred on science, technology, and innovation. While the 2063 development agenda portends attainment of socio-economic development and prosperity in Africa, it brings with it an enormous need for strategic investment in research to ensure that no one is left behind. This paper presents insights from the African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence (ARISE) programme on inclusive research capacity strengthening investment in Africa. The insights are drawn from a comprehensive candidate selection process for ARISE, from which 45 researchers (from a pool of 929 applicants) are recruited for ARISE Fellowships. The 45 early-to-mid-career researchers, 37% of which are women, are hosted in 45 institutions of higher learning located in 38 countries across Africa, conducting 5-year research fellowships with grants of up to €500,000 each. The insights from the ARISE programme contribute to the debate on effective approaches to programme scoping, design, and delivery, underscoring the need for consideration of scientific excellence in the context of diversity in research support capacity and investments across Africa.
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 | 0.147 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".