MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404708532 · doi:10.14321/aehm.027.02.85

Advancing and applying Blue Economy in the African Great Lakes

2024· article· en· W4404708532 on OpenAlexaff
M. Van der Knaap, M. Munawar, James Njiru, Christopher Mulanda Aura

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEconomyOceanographyGeographyFisheryEconomicsGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The three Great African Lakes (Victoria, Tanganyika, and Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa) are important for the Blue Economy growth of their riparian nations, providing, fisheries and aquaculture products, drinking water, microclimatic buffering, relatively cheap transport means, tourism, biodiversity, employment, and sources of energy (hydropower and oil). Economic growth comes with a cost in the form of pollution (municipal waste, industrial waste, sedimentation, agricultural run-off, land-use issues, etc.). Investments are required to augment benefits from improved regional collaboration to manage fisheries and aquaculture, restocking of certain fish species, strengthen transport, further develop tourism, and conserve biodiversity. Investments are also required to reduce the negative effects of climate change, invasive species, eutrophication, overfishing, waste disposal, polluting materials, oil spills in case of exploitation, and other threats to the well-being of the riparian populations, the profitability of economic activities and ecology of the lakes and their basins. The present paper reviews the various activities to advance the concept of the Blue Economy and highlights the utility and importance of lake management. There are excellent Blue Economy growth options for the three African Great Lakes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Ecosystem Health & ManagementSame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207