'Unused' Land and Unfulfilled Promises: Justifications for Displacing Communities in East Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies of large-scale land acquisitions, colloquially known as 'land grabbing', have reviewed factors driving international land deals, conditions that make regions vulnerable to land loss and anticipated outcomes for current land holders. Diverse audiences are persuaded by justificatory narratives of the reasonableness of transfers of land rights. which explain away large-scale transfers of land from farmers to commercial enterprises in order to disarm critics and agents of resistance, and establish a foundation of ideas that underpins perceived reality. With reference to cases of systematic dispossession in East Africa, this paper will focus on three types of pragmatic narratives used to justify land appropriation: the type-casting of lands and resident populations being targeted, the often utopian goals of development being pursued and the investment commitments being made. It asks whether the rationales that underpin large-scale land allocations by states reflects the type of utilitarian logic depicted by Rawls in his work on theories of justice, where hypothetical theories of end-goals are used to abrogate concrete rights held by actual individuals and communities.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".