MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Property Restitution Laws in a Post-War Context: The Case of Mozambique

2005· article· en· W2003419299 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jon D. Unruh

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestitutionLawContext (archaeology)Land lawPolitical scienceLand tenureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Post-war reconstruction environments involve particular contexts within which legal reform must operate in order to facilitate the peace process, recovery, and development. Land and property restitution after a war is an important but difficult issue for the integrity of the process, given the chaotic rights environment created by war and the limited financial, personnel, and institutional resources of governments recovering from war. This article examines Mozambique's experience with the creation of a land and property restitution legal regime within a post-war context that includes: a) strong restitution desires by very divided segments of the population that differ markedly in literacy, access to the state, allegiance during the war, attachment to legitimate authority, and tenure system; b) a history of changing and failed land policy; and c) the extreme lack of state capacity needed to manage a formal restitution program. After setting out the history of the war and land policy in Mozambique, the article examines restitution claims, and describes how the land law reform has attempted to produce a legal environment whereby many complex restitution cases could be 'self managed.'

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207