MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980505396 · doi:10.1163/187197308x356930

Rhetoric and Reality: The World Bank Development Policies, Mining Corporations, and Indigenous Communities in Latin America

2008· article· en· W1980505396 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

VenueInternational Community Law Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLatin AmericansRhetoricPolitical scienceNormativeIndigenous rightsInternational lawEconomyEconomic growthLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Relying on critical legal approaches, in particular TWAIL and the work of Indigenous scholars, this paper analyzes the extent to which the World Bank's notion of "development" and its promotion of the expansion of market-based legal reforms in Latin American countries have benefited transnational corporations (TNCs) to the detriment of Indigenous Peoples. It argues that the World Bank's policy-based lending programmes and market-oriented legal framework since 1980 have contributed to an expansion of corporate mining activities, which have caused not only forced displacement and further impoverishment of numerous Indigenous communities but have also directly contributed to the destruction of their cultures and the environment they inhabit. Furthermore, the World Bank's normative operational policies and practices on issues affecting Indigenous Peoples have provided a legal framework and mechanisms that "manage" affected Indigenous communities in ways that further the dispossession of their lands and natural resources.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.205 · 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