MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739641825 · doi:10.7202/1040637ar

Ethiopia: Natural Resource Exploitation and Emerging Investors1

2017· article· en· W2739641825 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hany Besada

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Gouvernance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural resourceCorporate governanceIncentivePopulation growthForeign direct investmentLegislationPopulationAgricultureBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Development economicsEconomic growthFood securityEconomicsNatural resource economicsGeographyPolitical scienceMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural resource governance accelerates development. Ethiopia, a low-income country, passed land legislation in the 1990s and subsequently exhibited exceptional economic growth and human development improvements. From 2004 to 2014, Ethiopia’s average annual GDP growth rate was about nine per cent. Nevertheless, over 80% of the population remain food insecure. Using a literature review and interviews, this case study examines Ethiopia’s economic and social development through a land governance lens. It aims to document the flaws in Ethiopia’s regulatory framework that hinder vulnerable communities from leveraging the benefits of greater foreign direct investments (FDI) and resultant economic growth. The case analyzes Ethiopia’s agricultural governance framework and the impact of FDI-driven large-scale farming on smallholder communities, and concludes with suggestions for alternative investment approaches. The case study reveals that Ethiopian government legislation and resultant macroeconomic growth has yet to deliver inclusive and stable economic gains for many of the vulnerable smallholder communities. There is a need to advance further regulation and policies that not only protect these vulnerable communities, but also enhance economic and trade incentives for potential foreign investors.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue GouvernanceSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207