MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776082694 · doi:10.1080/19376812.2017.1415814

Same problem, conflicting ‘truths’: rethinking the missing links in forest degradation narrativization in Ghana

2017· article· en· W2776082694 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

VenueAfrican Geographical Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnocracyNarrativePovertyForest degradationEnvironmental degradationIndigenousSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyLand degradationLawEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses narrative analysis drawing on secondary data from policy documents, reports, and academic literature to examine contemporary discourses on forest degradation in Ghana. Situating the analysis within science and policy-making, we identify the actors, corresponding storylines, and demonstrate how the knowledge produced shapes forest policy. We find that, external voices dominate forest degradation narrativization in Ghana. Amid conflicting statistics on the extent and rate of forest loss, local farmers are tagged as both villains and victims of degradation to which prescriptive technocratic solutions preoccupied with merely replacing trees are prioritized while neglecting underlying poverty and indigenous knowledge systems

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.234 · 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