MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027056068 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v5n2p81

Urban Growth and Livelihood Transformations on the Fringes of African Cities: A Case Study of Changing Livelihoods in Peri-Urban Accra

2015· article· en· W2027056068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Yaw Oduro, Ronald Adamtey, Kafui Afi Ocloo

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodBusinessAgricultureEnvironmental planningResource (disambiguation)UrbanizationUrban planningGeographyEconomic growthNatural resource economicsEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent times, a growing body of research has drawn attention to the changing interface and interdependence between urban and rural spaces in Africa. This includes studies on physical, environmental, socio-demographic, economic and other transformations in the peri-urban zone. However, little is known about how residents of peri-urban communities adapt their livelihoods to these transformations. Using the case study approach, and by applying the sustainable livelihood framework as an analytical tool, we have explored the livelihood strategies adopted by the residents of four communities in peri-urban Accrain response to the city’s physical expansion. We find that urban growth has differential effects on peri-urban livelihoods, thereby creating winners and losers. Some residents, by reason of their possession of, or control over, various forms of livelihood assets, are able to utilize opportunities offered by urban growth to devise livelihood strategies to enhance their wellbeing. Those who suffer adverse effects are mainly resource-poor farm households who, apart from not having the wherewithal to take advantage of opportunities created by urban growth, lose their farm-based livelihoods as a result of the conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural uses. We therefore recommend that local government authorities should incorporate peri-urban livelihood issues into their planning activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207