Resource development conflict: a quantitative approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose the thesis that how an individual views the world – their worldview – is indicative of their acceptance of resource development. A definition of worldview is given and the significance of worldview to cultural and civilizational development is described. A methodology for testing the hypothesis is described and the results of a survey used to collect data are analyzed. At least for the approximately 300 respondents to the survey, there is a correlation between their responses to a series of worldview questions and their acceptance of resource development. Not surprisingly, the correlation becomes stronger as the homogeneity of the respondent group increases. The results of the survey analysis are then compared to a known resource development conflict in a case study to understand the potential significance of the results in a real-world setting. Design/methodology/approach A definition of worldview is given and the significance of worldview to cultural and civilizational development is described and evaluated. A methodology for testing the hypothesis is described and the results of a survey used to collect data are analyzed. Findings At least for the 300 respondents to the survey, there is a correlation between their responses to a series of worldview questions and their acceptance of resource development. The case study indicates that respondents can hold contradictory views depending upon the level of inquiry. Research limitations/implications The sample size is too small to draw any but the most preliminary of conclusions. However, the correlations are high enough to encourage additional work. Practical implications The research may point to a relatively simple means of understanding the level of acceptance of resource development among all parties to a development proposal. This will allow proponents to identify issues early enough to address them in the design and negotiation phases of project development. Social implications Resource developers and residents local to the proposed development are often talking at cross-purposes because the issues are not understood at a deep enough level. Once issues are understood at the deeper level of worldview opportunities for resolution may be identified. Originality/value As far as the researchers are aware this is the only published methodology for quantifying the acceptance of resource development. As identified by the case study, it is possible for a community to reject resource development for reasons that have little to do with resource development either in the particular or in the general.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».