MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285505504

The Primacy of People in Development: Theoretical and Legal Perspectives on Oil and Gas Decision-Making

2012· article· en· W2285505504 on OpenAlexaff
Chilenye Nwapi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Face (sociological concept)Environmental lawPolitical scienceLaw and developmentPublic participationNatural resourceDeveloping countryResource (disambiguation)LawEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsDevelopment studiesSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book combines perspectives from development theory and law to address the problem of public participation in natural resource development. While its practical focus is on oil and gas resources, the analysis contained therein can be applied widely. The book draws from a variety of disciplines, including development studies, conflicts studies, environmental studies and law. The book notes that while public participation has acquired a prominent status at the international level, its evolution at the domestic level is irregular, Using Nigeria – a country known for its difficulties in grappling with the human and environmental problems associated with oil and gas development – as a case study, it analyzes the international law of public participation and assesses the domestic standards in Nigeria against that backdrop. Since many countries, especially in the developing world, face similar challenges, the insights contained in this book can also be of benefit to those other countries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Resources and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207