MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575479772 · doi:10.1080/02604027.2012.693854

Preventing The Oil “Resource Curse” In Ghana: Lessons From Nigeria

2012· article· en· W1575479772 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Futures · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource curseNexus (standard)Leverage (statistics)Petroleum industryDutch diseaseOil boomRevenueResource (disambiguation)CurseNatural resourceEconomicsBusinessNatural resource economicsEconomic growthDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceLawSociologyFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ghana joined the list of oil-producing countries with the export of its first oil from the Jubilee oilfield in January 2011. President John Atta Mills's statement drawing attention to the potential paradigm shift as well as risks that the discovery of oil and gas imposes not only speaks to the complexity of extractive-industry-engendered development, but it also makes it imperative that the country learns from other countries’ successes and failures. In this article, we use the “resource curse” thesis to examine the emerging dynamics and complexities in Ghana's oil industry, with the attempt to draw both correlations with and lessons from the Nigerian case. The article highlights five key lessons in Nigeria's management of its oil–gas resources related to the legal-regulatory framework, development of the oil-producing areas, Corporate Social Responsibility, management of oil revenues, and oil–civil society nexus that Ghana should give serious thoughts to in order to leverage its new found oil wealth and avert the “resource curse.”

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.208 · 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