Transparency in Resource Governance: The Pitfalls and Potential of “New Oil” in Sub-Saharan Africa
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
An international agenda has evolved over the past decade to establish hard and soft rules to govern the impacts of the extractive industries. The international community and some resource-rich states have increasingly embraced norms such as transparency in resource governance. This paper explores how multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Publish What You Pay (PWYP) campaign have sought to institutionalize transparency in resource governance. By exploring how, why, and to what effect transparency in resource governance has taken hold in a new petro-economy such as Ghana, I highlight two key findings: the interaction between voluntary and mandatory governance mechanisms and rescaling of authority, and the multi-scalar dimensions of resource governance and subsequent lack of focus on sub-national issues. In concluding, I question the transformative potential of transparency in resource governance, which has significant global implications as the demand for energy and non-energy minerals continues to rise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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