fabrice

Project Owner

Cartography, an anticipation tool: Case of …

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Details locked. Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.

Overview

The objective of this research is to confirm the hypothesis according to which cartography is an effective tool in a work of prediction of the future or anticipation. Specifically, it is a matter of demonstrating how, in an environment hostile to long- and medium-term loans, the mapping of organizations subsidized by the PCP-ACEFA Program will impact decisions relating to projects to be financed in the Agropastoral sector (evolution of the rate of loans granted to OPS by Microfinance Institutions for investment projects in the Agropastoral sector).

RFP Guidelines

Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Internal Proposal Review

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $40,000 USD
Proposals 21
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Apr. 14, 2025

Develop a modular and extensible framework for integrating various motivational systems into AGI architectures, supporting both human-like and "alien digital" intelligences. This could be done as a highly detailed and precise specification, or as a relatively simple software prototype with suggestions for generalization and extension. Bids are expected to range from $15,000 - $30,000.

Proposal Description

Proposal Details Locked…

In order to protect this proposal from being copied, all details are hidden until the end of the submission period. Please come back later to see all details.

Total Milestones
9
Total Budget
$25,000_USD
Last Updated
23 May 2025

Milestone 1 - Inception & Planning

Description

Define scope, partners, roles, schedule

Deliverables

Inception report, signed work plan

Budget

$2,000 USD

Success Criterion

Stakeholder alignment, approval of research plan

Milestone 2 - Literature Review & Framework Design

Description

Review literature; define indicators and methodology

Deliverables

Literature synthesis, Theory of Change, MEL framework

Budget

$2,000 USD

Success Criterion

Validated methodology and policy relevance established

Milestone 3 - Tool Development & Ethical Approval

Description

Design data collection tools, consent forms

Deliverables

Field protocols, consent templates, ethics clearance

Budget

$2,000 USD

Success Criterion

ools validated; ethics standards met

Milestone 4 - Field Data Collection & Mapping

Description

Collect geo-referenced data from OPS and MFIs

Deliverables

Clean dataset, geolocation database, raw maps

Budget

$5,000 USD

Success Criterion

90% data completeness; regional OPS coverage

Milestone 5 - Data Analysis & Predictive Modeling

Description

Analyze spatial and loan data; correlate OPS maps with loan trends

Deliverables

Analytical model, predictive scenarios, dashboard mock-up

Budget

$4,000 USD

Success Criterion

Identification of trends/correlations; model validated

Milestone 6 - Stakeholder Validation Workshop

Description

Present preliminary findings to MFIs, program managers

Deliverables

Workshop report, feedback summary, revised results

Budget

$3,000 USD

Success Criterion

Stakeholder feedback incorporated; recommendations improved

Milestone 7 - Final Reporting & Documentation

Description

Write final report with annexes (maps, analysis, policy insights)

Deliverables

Full report, GIS layers, annexes

Budget

$3,000 USD

Success Criterion

Peer-reviewed internally; formatted for donor submission

Milestone 8 - Policy Briefs & Dissemination

Description

Produce knowledge briefs, digital map exports, visual summaries

Deliverables

policy brief, slide deck, online publication-ready materials

Budget

$2,000 USD

Success Criterion

Accepted by stakeholders; shared through 2+ platforms

Milestone 9 - Contingency & Flexibility

Description

Address unforeseen needs (logistics, travel, printing)

Deliverables

Contingency report (if activated)

Budget

$2,000 USD

Success Criterion

Risks managed without impact on results

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

0 /5000 chars

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

Reviews and Ratings in Deep Funding are structured in 4 categories. This will ensure that the reviewer takes all these perspectives into account in their assessment and it will make it easier to compare different projects on their strengths and weaknesses. Overall (Primary) This is an average of the 4 perspectives. At the start of this new process, we are assigning an equal weight to all categories, but over time we might change this and make some categories more important than others in the overall score. (This may even be done retroactively). Feasibility (secondary) This represents the user\'s assessment of whether the proposed project is theoretically possible and if it is deemed feasible. E.g. A proposal for nuclear fission might be theoretically possible, but it doesn’t look very feasible in the context of Deep Funding. Viability (secondary) This category is somewhat similar to Feasibility, but it interprets the feasibility against factors such as the size and experience of the team, the budget requested, and the estimated timelines. We could frame this as: “What is your level of confidence that this team will be able to complete this project and its milestones in a reasonable time, and successfully deploy it?” Examples:

A proposal that promises the development of a personal assistant that outperforms existing solutions might be feasible, but if there is no AI expertise in the team the viability rating might be low.
A proposal that promises a new Carbon Emission Compensation scheme might be technically feasible, but the viability could be estimated low due to challenges around market penetration and widespread adoption.

Desirability (secondary) Even if the project team succeeds in creating a product, there is the question of market fit. Is this a project that fulfills an actual need? Is there a lot of competition already? Are the USPs of the project sufficient to make a difference? Example:

Creating a translation service from, say Spanish to English might be possible, but it\'s questionable if such a service would be able to get a significant share of the market

Usefulness (secondary) This is a crucial category that aligns with the main goal of the Deep Funding program. The question to be asked here is: “To what extent will this proposal help to grow the Decentralized AI Platform?” For proposals that develop or utilize an AI service on the platform, the question could be “How many API calls do we expect it to generate” (and how important / high-valued are these calls?). For a marketing proposal, the question could be “How large and well-aligned is the target audience?” Another question is related to how the budget is spent. Are the funds mainly used for value creation for the platform or on other things? Examples:

A metaverse project that spends 95% of its budget on the development of the game and only 5 % on the development of an AI service for the platform might expect a low ‘usefulness’ rating here.

A marketing proposal that creates t-shirts for a local high school, would get a lower ‘usefulness’ rating than a marketing proposal that has a viable plan for targeting highly esteemed universities in a scaleable way.
An AI service that is fully dedicated to a single product, does not take advantage of the purpose of the platform. When the same service would be offered and useful for other parties, this should increase the ‘usefulness’ rating.

fabrice

Project Owner

Overall coordination of the research project , lead author of deliverable. Budget monitoring, Design of spatial mapping tools, data visualization, development of predictive cartographic models

View Profile

Account Pending

M&E Expert

Support in transcription, documentation, formatting of reports and briefs, note-taking Procurement, reporting compliance, Processing of quantitative data, statistical correlation analysis

Account Pending

Finance Expert

Development of policy briefs, workshop facilitation, alignment of findings with public policy and SDGs Supervision of liaison with MFIs and OPS, quality control

Account Pending