MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

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

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
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