MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015261649

Deforestation and Resource Conflicts in Papua New Guinea

2020· preprint· en· W3015261649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)LivelihoodNatural resourceGeographyShock (circulatory)New guineaResource (disambiguation)AgricultureDevelopment economicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Natural resource economicsNatural resource managementDeveloping countryEconomicsEconomic growthPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conflicts over natural resources are common in developing countries, due to poorly defined property rights and limited state capacity for preventing conflict and because environmental incomes matter more to livelihoods than in rich countries. In Papua New Guinea (PNG), for example, the subject of the current study, almost one-quarter of households had land disputes in the previous 12 months, with disputes over agricultural and forestry resources, over development projects, and tribal fighting also frequently experienced. About seven percent of the land disputes and 40 percent of the tribal fights resulted in deaths. In this paper, geo referenced household survey data on disputes and conflicts, and remote sensing observations on forest losses in the local area over the prior ten years are used to show the frequency of conflict over natural resources, the distributional incidence of this conflict – whether rich or poor areas are more at risk – and the effect of large-scale environmental change, specifically deforestation, on the subsequent risk of conflict. A sharp increase in log exports, which saw PNG become the largest exporter to China as other countries withdrew from the tropical logs trade, represents an exogenous shock that helps to identify effects of deforestation on conflict rather than the reverse relationship.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207