Social impact assessments of large dams throughout the world: lessons learned over two decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dams reviewed in this paper — Three Gorges in China, Ilisu in Turkey and Urra in Colombia — are controversial and the assessment of their social impacts represents a challenge. This paper emphasizes the complexity of the institutional setting and social impacts of these projects as well as the specific problems raised by their assessment, which result from the magnitude, intensity and visibility of these impacts. The paper draws lessons from these projects on SIA methods, impact perception, the analysis of project alternatives, the design of mitigation and compensation measures, social monitoring and follow-up, as well as ethical boundaries. Keywords: damshydroelectric projectsenvironmentalimpact assessmentresettlement issueshuman impactssocial impacts
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →1 of 3 models called this metaresearch. This work is contested: it sits on the field's empirical boundary, and whether it counts depends on which model you asked. It is one of the 51 works in the disagreement dossier.
Lessons on social impact assessment methods from large dam projects; the object is regulatory assessment practice rather than scholarly research practice, but the methodological framing puts it near the boundary.
The work draws cross-case lessons about social impact assessment methods, monitoring, alternatives, and ethical practice.
Lessons on social impact assessment of large dams; project impact methods, not study of research itself.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".