Power in The Sun: An Evaluation of The Economic Effects of Russian-Africa Relations Within A Decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an era of immense geopolitics where a win by one superpower is viewed as a lost for the other, especially with the Russian [China, Iran, North Korea] vs Ukrainian [US, Canada/West] with neutral states mostly from Africa, Turkiye, watching. The continent of Africa is a haven of political clout accompanied by its shrewd area with immense foreign appetite from foreign powers among which is the Russian Federation [the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, USSR]. The need for economic, political, and military interest has culminated to Moscow’s ties with the continent within a decade especially with her war against [Ukraine+West]. The holding of 1st and 2nd Russia-Africa Summits in Sochi (2019) and Saint Petersburg (2023) is an indication of closer ties with wide agreements signed. Despite the broadening of relations on a multilateral front between Russia and many African states, many western critics have described these relations as ‘wolfish’ just like that of the French. The motive of this article is to map the economic effects of Russo-Africa relations on Africa in the 21st Century within a decade. The paper adopts a historical approach and data generated are from secondary sources. The theoretical yardstick adopted by the article is that of Constructivism which highlights these relations from the 2000s. The paper concludes that Moscow’s economic engagement in the continent is minimal as compared to economic impact of Western rivals, and Russia trades more with the West prior to the outbreak of the Russia-Ukrainian standoff. However, with full commitment on mutual-trust on both sides, positive economic effects will accrue from these relations in future especially after the ‘Special Russian Military Operation’.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".