MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406464199 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18010037

The Donkey and the Thorn Tree: Reappraising Globalisation and Africa

2025· article· en· W4406464199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Greg Mills, Richard Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonkeyTree (set theory)GlobalizationGeographyPolitical scienceArchaeologyLawMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Africa is vulnerable to a perfect storm which comprises a burgeoning youthful population, insufficient infrastructure, benign donor neglect and more malign foreign interference, much of which can be traced to decades of weak economic performance. African excuses for such failure have focused largely on external factors. But countries from similar domestic environments and in the same world order across Asia, Europe and Latin America have developed in leaps and bounds. This would suggest that, for at least some countries, Africa is poor because its leaders have chosen the wrong path. This essay provides a reappraisal of globalisation vis-à-vis Africa, arguing that the continent does not have too much globalisation, but too little in the form of open competition for business and markets, and that politics, not economics, is the principal development impediment. Examples on the continent (Somaliland) and elsewhere (Singapore) illustrate what impact effective politics can have, highlighting that a major challenge for Africa is an inability to create regional exemplars of prosperity that other states can emulate and feed off in a positive cycle of development. To this end, getting the (democratic) politics right in Africa makes good development sense.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.029
Scholarly communication0.0110.021
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207