Science Diplomacy in West and Central Africa: <i>State, Trends</i> and <i>Patterns</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review and reflection have been made on the evolving discipline of science diplomacy from the point of view of state, pattern and trend in West and Central Africa. While the state is embryonic and implemented consciously or unconsciously, the pattern indicates business is done with friends other than former colonial powers. From the three roles of science diplomacy – science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy and diplomacy for science – West and Central African states have been engaged with the latter. The priority areas involved aimed at creating capacity for science, technology and innovation through education and technology transfer. The players involved included governments, private sectors and individual scientists. Challenges were many but most important was the non-respect of commitments made by partners leading to failure to achieve stated objectives and targets. Suggestions for improvement have been made. Most important among these are transparency, clarity and respect of commitments earlier agreed. To benefit from the three roles of science diplomacy, states of the region need to create adequate critical capacity/mass based on a common vision founded on collective aims.
 Une revue et une réflexion ont été effectués sur l’évolution de la discipline de la diplomatie scientifique du point de vue de l’état, du modèle et de la tendance en Afrique de l’Ouest et Centrale. Alors que l’état est embryonnaire et mis en œuvre consciemment ou inconsciemment, le modèle indique que les affaires se font avec des amis autres que les anciennes puissances coloniales. Des trois rôles de la diplomatie scientifique - la science dans la diplomatie, la science pour la diplomatie et la diplomatie pour la science - les États d’Afrique de l’Ouest et Centrale ont été engagés avec cette dernière. Les domaines prioritaires concernés visaient à créer des capacités pour la science, la technologie et l’innovation par le biais de l’éducation et du transfert de technologie. Les acteurs impliqués comprenaient les gouvernements, le secteur privé et les scientifiques individuels. Les défis étaient nombreux, mais le plus important était le non-respect des engagements pris par les partenaires, ce qui a conduit à l’échec de la réalisation des objectifs et des cibles fixés. Des suggestions d’amélioration ont été faites. Les plus importantes d’entre elles sont la transparence, la clarté et le respect des engagements pris antérieurement. Pour tirer parti des trois rôles de la diplomatie scientifique, les États de la région doivent créer une capacité/masse critique adéquate fondée sur une vision commune reposant sur des biens communs collectifs.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".