MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900507539 · doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1530817

Populism or Petrostate?: The Afterlives of Ecuador’s Yasuní-ITT Initiative

2018· article· en· W2900507539 on OpenAlexaff
Donald Kingsbury, Teresa Kramarz, Kyle Jacques

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety & Natural Resources · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)IndigenousRevenuePolitical sciencePopulismOil reservesNational parkEconomic growthPublic administrationGeographyBusinessEconomicsFinancePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2007, the Government of Ecuador announced the Yasuní-ITT Initiative: a proposal to forego exploiting 20% of its oil reserves located in the Yasuní National Park – home to one of the earth’s most biodiverse places and several indigenous groups living in voluntary isolation. In exchange, Ecuador asked the international community for $3.6 billion, roughly half the projected revenues of conventional oil extraction. Five years later, Ecuador received less than 10% of the required pledges and the initiative was canceled. Many accounts emphasized the then President Rafael Correa’s perceived untrustworthiness as key in explaining the initiative’s failure. This article instead examines the role of entrenched institutions of the petrostate, emphasizing how the initiative defied expectations by offering a post-extractivist path for Ecuador. Despite its failure, this horizon continues to orient debates on development and extractivism, forming “afterlives” of a call to mitigate climate change by leaving oil in the ground.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety & Natural ResourcesSame topicNatural Resources and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207