MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986239767 · doi:10.1093/jrs/16.4.422

China Three Gorges Project Resettlement: Policy, Planning and Implementation

2003· article· en· W1986239767 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refugee Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHydropower, Displacement, Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Three Gorges UniversityUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsChinaHydroelectricityEnvironmental planningThree gorgesPolitical scienceSiltationEconomic growthEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the construction of the Three Gorges Project was approved at the fifth plenary session of the seventh National People's Congress in April 1992, more than ten years have elapsed. This massive hydroelectric project, which will take a total of 17 years to be completed, is now at its peak stage of construction. Many scholars and experts have expressed concerns about the various problems resulting from its construction, such as siltation, other environmental impacts and resettlement. Among these, the resettlement problem is the most challenging. Based on over six months of investigation in the Three Gorges in 2001, and an overview of resettlement literature, this paper examines the development of the resettlement policy, planning, and challenges to the implementation of the resettlement plan. Focusing primarily on rural resettlement, and including data from case studies, it addresses the evolution and recent changes to resettlement policy and practice, and presents recommendations for development of the resettlement work. Great strides have been made in effective implementation of resettlement policy and plans in China and the Three Gorges Project. However, constraints in the Three Gorges physical and economic environment continue to precipitate necessary change to resettlement policy and planning. New standards for displacement compensation must continue to be explored, and fuller participation of the displaced must be sought to avoid the social and economic risks of impoverishment in the Three Gorges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.460 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Refugee StudiesSame topicHydropower, Displacement, Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207