Geographies of War: Perspectives on ‘Resource Wars’
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Natural resources figure prominently in studies of geographies of wars. This article reviews the three main perspectives on so‐called ‘resource wars’: geopolitical, political economy and political ecology. Classical geopolitical perspectives mostly provide ‘realpolitik’ assessments of international tensions over the supply of ‘strategic’ resources. Such geopolitical constructs of ‘resource wars’ frequently oversimplify power relations and provide a fertile ground for critical enquiries. Refining understandings of resource scarcity and power relations, political economy perspectives point at resource dependence and ‘looting’ opportunities as potential risk factors in the onset and duration of armed conflicts. Finally, through greater contextual sensitivity and multiscalar analysis, political ecology perspectives emphasise the diverse forms of violence at play in ‘resource wars’ and stress the importance of identities and territorialities. Bridging and renewing conceptual and methodological approaches drawn from these three perspective could yield yet further insights on so‐called ‘resource wars’ and serve broad objectives of social and environmental justice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it