MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994408849 · doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.888793

The Impact of Herder Sedentarization on Natural Resource Access in Northeastern Ghana

2014· article· en· W1994408849 on OpenAlexafffund
Rita Yembilah, Miriam Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety & Natural Resources · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaMount Royal University
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsIndigenousLivelihoodLivestockNatural resourceNegotiationGeographyResource (disambiguation)Opposition (politics)Political scienceSocioeconomicsEnvironmental resource managementSociologyEcologyPoliticsAgricultureForestryArchaeologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fulani of West Africa have increasingly migrated to humid West Africa since the Sahelian droughts of the 1970s, drawing opposition from indigenous groups that are concerned about the deprivation of their livelihood and monopolization of resources for herders’ livestock. This research, which involved farmers, shepherds, and Fulani herders, addressed three issues: the nature of indigenous grazing and watering regimes, shepherd–herder relations, and herders’ impact on resource access for indigenes’ livestock. The research indicates that in-community and off-community platforms for resource access exist. The former has not been impacted by the herders; the latter has experienced changes insufficient to constitute an overhaul of resource access at the expense of indigenes’ livestock. Instead, a “shepherd–herder” category of resource access has emerged that is characterized by negotiation for resource space, opening avenues for addressing broader resource access issues, and typically tense indigene–herder relationships.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety & Natural ResourcesSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207