MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887673049 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n4p27

Using Informal Institutions to Address Resettlement Issues – The Case of Ghana Dams Dialogue

2018· article· en· W2887673049 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

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHydropower, Displacement, Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodLikert scaleIndigenousBusinessEconomic growthLand tenureSocioeconomicsTransparency (behavior)AgricultureSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study set off to address resettlement issues through the effective utilization of informal institutions, vis-à-vis the Ghana Dams Dialogue, but specifically sourced information from respondents inhabiting both Kpong and VRA resettlement townships (KAVRTs) in Ghana. Among other objectives, the study investigated the key economic and social implications of resettlement schemes on displaced individuals, in addition to the critical factors affecting informal institutions in addressing resettlement issues in Ghana. Per the study’s execution, the researcher adopted both qualitative and quantitative method of research as well as convenience sampling technique to select respondents at the institution for their views on the study. A questionnaire was adopted as the main survey instrument while 5-Point Likert scale which was later transform into the Relative Importance Index (RII) was employed to facilitate the analysis of data obtained from the field. Findings of the study indicated the 6 key economic and social implications of resettlement schemes on displaced individuals’ determinants at KAVRTs as high morbidity/mortality rates, loss of economic power, compromising and destroying of farming systems, livelihood deficits and marginalization, psychological and socio-cultural stress as well as disorganization and framework of indigenous markets dissimilar from the erstwhile format. Furthermore, with respect to the critical factors affecting informal institutions in addressing resettlement issues at KAVRTs, 6 notable constructs were also intimated by the respondents’, namely: in effective planning regimes, restrictive implications of livelihood restoration programs, procedural delays associated with compensation, lack of transparency in land allocation/farming techniques and partiality, inadequate compensation and rehabilitation assistance in addition to questionable housing policy. Having noted the critical factors informal institutions face in addressing resettlement issues at KAVRTs, the study recommended it strictly adheres to the promotion of interactions among stakeholders on compensation issues, swift maturation of GDD policy levels, GDD strengthening of its engagement with relevant agencies, effective participation, upholding of citizenship rights, identification and evaluation of asset contribution, provision of social amenities, active NGO participation, promotion of shared cultural values, vis-a-vis livelihood support programs (LSP) among others captured in the study to manage the critical issues raised.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.377 · 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