Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After extensive preparation, the methodology for national stakeholders to establish their priority agricultural information themes is now nearing the application phase.\n\nThe methodology, which aims at strengthening capacities in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of agricultural policies, will be promoted through national bodies, national and regional workshops plus a wide range of customised information tools aimed at specific stakeholders such as decision makers, farmers groups, agricultural services, and the media. Many of the materials are summarised in a special CD-ROM.\n\nThese plans were drawn up at a regional workshop, with concrete activities already planned for Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Côte d Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Niger, Senegal and Togo. The meeting was held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso from 17 to 21 December 2001, under CTA auspices.\n\nIn line with the oft-prevailing practice of subsidiarity, whereby responsibility for an activity is held by the nearest competent body to its stakeholders, the national contact organisations committed themselves to drawing up their concrete plans of action during the first quarter of 2002. Similarly, the Website featuring the workshop s Declaration of Ouagadougou and its report is hosted in Burkina Faso.\n\nA follow-up regional workshop is slated for end-2002, to review progress in the promotion of the methodology at national level.\n\n\n\nWebsite: www.cta.liptinfor.bf
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 it