MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557448468 · doi:10.1111/lamp.12109

Resource Extractivism in Latin America: Canadian Investments in Mining

2016· article· en· W2557448468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Isidro Morales

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)PublishingPoliticsSection (typography)Library sciencePublic administrationEconomic historyHistoryBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latin American Policy invited Laura MacDonald and Pablo Heidrich as guest editors to prepare the core articles for this issue. Both scholars in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, they prepared an excellent collection of eight articles dealing with Canadian mining investments in key countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru. We are very grateful to our guest editors and to all of the contributors for their interest in publishing in our journal. We hope our readers find these contributions interesting and attractive for their respective policy making or research. In our Policy Articles section, we also include three contributions from other authors, dealing with microfinance and trade-policy issues in Brazil and with renewable-energy policies in Central America. Finally, readers will find two interesting book reviews in the respective section. Isidro Morales is Editor-in-Chief of Latin American Policy and is a professor at the School of Government, Tecnológico de Monterrey.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American PolicySame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207