In Search of Dialogue? Oil Companies and Indigenous Peoples of the Ecuadorean Amazon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, the oil development agenda has been influenced by the neo-liberal economic thought, with its emphasis on the virtues of private enterprise. This emphasis has, however, combined with a greater attention to environmental issues. Many private sector representatives have expressed their commitment to the principle of environmental and social responsibility, which, at the turn of the millennium, is supposed to moderate the unrelenting corporate search for profits. The analysis of the oil development in the Ecuadorean Amazon suggests though that this commitment is uneven and, overall, rather weak. More meaningful government and community participation are needed to make it effective. Without improved government regulations and increased community pressures, the corporate principle of environmental and social responsibility is likely to remain in the realm of public relations, legitimizing corporate presence in environmentally fragile indigenous territories, but producing few tangible results. In addition, more thought should be given to the nature of indigenous claims with regard to oil development. While environmental protection is an important issue, even more so is the need for sustainable income-generation projects that would allow indigenous peoples to alleviate their subsistence crisis.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".