MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604437668 · doi:10.7202/1039239ar

Zambia: Governance and Natural Resources

2017· article· en· W2604437668 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Gouvernance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural resourceCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)Resource (disambiguation)Natural (archaeology)Private sectorPoliticsBusinessNatural resource managementEconomic growthEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the natural resources governance framework in Zambia. The research is the result of a broader project on natural resource governance with interviews performed in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The goal of the paper is to identify the gaps and inconsistencies within the Zambian natural resource policy framework, in an effort to broaden the understanding of how governance of the sector may be streamlined and optimized. It further offers suggestions on how other sectors, such as education, may be central to the development of a more successful natural resource framework. The paper focuses on Zambia as a country with a long history of mining and a relatively stable political environment, yet one in which tensions between government and the private sector remain, and policies on natural resource extraction which have been particularly volatile in recent years.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · 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