Diamond Wars? Conflict Diamonds and Geographies of 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
In the late 1990s, natural resources such as oil, diamonds, and timber came under increased scrutiny by conflict analysts and media outlets for their purported role in many contemporary wars. This article discusses some of the limitations of conventional arguments linking wars and resources. Dominated by econometric approaches and rational choice theory interpretations, arguments pertaining to "resource wars" often oversimplify or overlook the geographical dimensions of resource-related conflicts. By defining spatiality primarily in terms of the location of resource reserves and flows generating revenues for belligerents, these approaches overlook other geographical aspects of resources crucial to conflicts. Focusing on "conflict diamonds" and drawing on recent international relations works and geographical research on the political ecology of violence, commodity chains, and consumption, the article presents an alternative conceptual framework engaging with resource-related spaces of vulnerability, risk, and opportunity for conflicts. This framework, in turn, highlights policy biases resulting from oversimplified readings of "resource war" geographies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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