MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006562743 · doi:10.1080/19376812.2020.1719367

Differential impacts of dam construction on livelihoods in Ghana

2020· article· en· W3006562743 on OpenAlexaff
Jones Lewis Arthur, Grant Murray, Rick Rollins, Philip Dearden, Ann B. Stahl

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Geographical Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHydropower, Displacement, Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodRelocationAsset (computer security)Human capitalEthnic groupCapital assetPoliticsQualitative propertyPhysical capitalSocial capitalCapital (architecture)Natural capitalDifferential (mechanical device)SocioeconomicsEconomic growthGeographyBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceSociologyFinanceSocial scienceEngineeringAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debates about the benefits and costs of hydro-electric dams have provoked this study, which examines how the Bui Dam in Ghana impacts on 13 nearby communities. Impacts were assessed using the capital assets framework, embracing seven types of capital assets: social, natural, human, physical, financial, cultural, and political. Data was collected through a quantitative questionnaire administered to 339 households, and qualitative interviews with 22 key informants. Findings indicated that dam impacts on each capital asset were generally negative, but varied somewhat. Relocation and type of livelihood were important explanatory factors, while age, ethnicity, education and gender were lesser factors.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Geographical ReviewSame topicHydropower, Displacement, Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207