Natural Resource Conflicts as a Struggle for Space: The Case of Mining 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
<p><em>Natural resource extraction in Africa has been characterised by conflicts between large scale and small scale miners on the one hand and large scale miners and the communities on the other. In some countries such as Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Liberia, natural resources have bred political instability and civil wars. A great deal of academic discourse on resource conflicts in Africa focuses on greed, corruption, political struggles for state capture and control over resources, economic liberalisation policies for attracting foreign investors and creating conducive climate for them to invest their capital in natural resource extraction, and foreign forces. While recognising the significance of the above approaches in explaining resource conflicts in Africa, this paper aims at explaining resource conflicts as a struggle for space between the communities, artisanal and small scale miners and large scale foreign mining corporations. The paper, therefore, argues that natural resource extraction conflicts in Africa can well be understood if we approach them as a struggle for space. Data for this paper are drawn from secondary sources including academic literature, government reports, media reports and internet sources.</em></p>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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