24. Konferencja Afrykańskiego Towarzystwa Geologicznego Addis Abeba, Etiopia, 6–14.01.2013: międzynarodowa pomoc dla Afryki czy neokolonializm naukowy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
24 th Conference of the Geological Society of Africa – Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, January 6–14, 2013: international aid vs. scientific neocolonialism. A b s t r a c t. 24 th Colloquium of Geological Society of Africa covered a wide range of fields in geology, from basic research and mineral resources geology to hydrogeology and geotourism. Presentations delivered at the colloquium confirmed vast scale of mineral wealth of Africa, showing at the same time that any substantial further progress in identifying new resources is hampered by the lack of good geological maps at appropriate scales. Some major problems in exploitation of mineral resources in Africa are related to artisanal and small scale mining (ASM). On one hand, ASM provides an income that is sufficient to cover basic needs for tens of millions of Africans, and on the other hand – its environmental impact may be very harmful, especially in the case of mining and processing of gold-bearing ores. Geological research in Africa is usually supported scientifically and financially by EU countries, USA, Canada, Australia as well as China. This is due to the lack of local specialists and sufficiently equipped laboratories practically everywhere except for RSA. Also two papers presented by the Author and his team gave results of research carried out in Angola and Zambia mainly thanks to assistance projects financed by the Polish Aid Programme of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.015 |
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".