MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291853466 · doi:10.1111/jlca.12198

In Defense of Water: Modern Mining, Grassroots Movements, and Corporate Strategies in Peru

2016· article· es· W2291853466 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGrassrootsHumanitiesGeographyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumen Este artículo explora porqué el agua se ha convertido en un tema central de las controversias mineras recientes, centrándose en un conflicto entre la empresa minera Yanacocha y la comunidad de Combayo, en la sierra norte del Perú. En las protestas de 2006, los campesinos argumentaron que su lucha era por la protección de los recursos hídricos ante la expansión de la minería. La empresa trató de desacreditar estas quejas al arguir que las protestas comenzaron como una demanda por contratos de trabajo y proyectos de desarrollo. Esta separación entre el empleo y el agua, esconde cómo las tecnologías de la minería moderna transforman el paisaje, a la vez que introduce cambios en las prácticas corporativas de la empresa y medidas de acción política en respuesta a la actividad minera. Este artículo examina el papel del agua tanto en la movilización de manifestantes, la reconfiguración de las alianzas políticas existentes y, al propiciar un acuerdo que reduce el alcance del conflicto que da paso a argumentos técnicos sobre la calidad y cantidad de agua, la promesa de empleos, y un estudio hidrológico. [ecología, medio ambiente, movimientos sociales, Perú]

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 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 score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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