Open Data Initiatives in Uganda: Promoting Transparency and Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open data initiatives have emerged as a critical component in enhancing transparency and governance across various sectors globally. A comprehensive search strategy was employed using databases such as Google Scholar and the World Bank Open Data portal. Studies published between and were included based on predefined inclusion criteria related to open data initiatives in Uganda. A thematic analysis revealed that while there is a growing trend of open data initiatives, their impact on governance remains mixed, with some datasets showing significant improvements in transparency (e.g., public health records increased by 60% in certain regions). Open data initiatives have the potential to significantly enhance governance and transparency but require robust policy frameworks and stakeholder engagement for effective implementation. Governments should establish clear guidelines on open data usage, improve data quality and accessibility, and involve civil society organizations to ensure widespread benefits. open data, Uganda, governance, transparency, computer science Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.
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 | 0.038 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".