MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161768924 · doi:10.82308/3556

Space Technologies for Africa's socio-economic development: legal considerations

2022· dissertation· en· W7161768924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olaoluwa Awe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)ScarcitySpace technologyWork (physics)Space policySpace lawOuter spaceEmerging technologies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Africa is blessed with vast natural and human resources. However, Africa’s socio-economic development remains limited due to various lingering challenges such as agriculture: food scarcity and food security, disaster management, climate change, and insecurity. In addressing these lingering challenges, space programs and space technologies could be excellent tools to enhance Africa’s socio-economic development. Thus, this research examines legal considerations for African states to harness space technologies in propelling Africa’s socio-economic development, focusing on the domestic legal framework for implementing international programs and commitments in these selected African States - Nigeria, South Africa, and Ethiopia.This research is divided into two aspects – Technical and Legal. The technical aspect lays the background for this research, evaluates how space technologies can solve Africa’s socio-economic development challenges, and assesses international programs supporting Africa in leveraging space technologies for Africa’s benefit. The assessment of these international programs aims to identify if these programs have indeed helped Africa. If yes, how can they be expanded, and if not, what should be done? The second part of this research examines legal considerations - laws and policies. This section analyzes the domestic space laws and policies of the selected African States in supporting space programs in their region, propelling private space participation, and implementing their international space obligations. Also, this research compares the domestic space framework in India and Indonesia with that of the African States assessed in this work and further analyzes the space policies of the United States of America and Canada to determine any lesson(s) for Africa. In addition to the legal considerations assessed, this research examines the intersection of law and economics in advancing Africa’s space sector. Particularly evaluating the role of leaders like the African Union and the African Development Bank in enhancing economic investments in the African space industry. Finally, this research examines the role of law in enhancing Africa’s launch capacities, including legal considerations for incentivizing the sale and purchase of satellite data in Africa

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207