Land-Use Planning, Digital Technologies, and Environmental Conservation in Tanzania
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory land-use planning (LUP) is often promoted as a solution to various environment-related challenges. In Tanzania, planning processes often represent a stage in the conversion of village lands to different uses, such as wildlife conservation or large-scale farming. LUP in Tanzania is frequently dominated by powerful local, national, or international elites, resulting in loss of rights over village land despite the opposition of many villagers. Contemporary planning involves digital technologies such as global positioning system units, which enable easier storage and sharing of geospatial data. Using assemblage theory, and based on key informant interviews conducted in Arusha and Kilimanjaro Regions of Tanzania in 2015, this article shows that LUP, particularly when it involves digital technologies, is used to not only to change land uses but also to strengthen linkages between different organizations, reinforce certain narratives of environmental change, and legitimize particular forms of external intervention.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it