MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125269847

Associations in Name Only: Small Loggers’ Associations in Guyana

2015· article· en· W3125269847 on OpenAlexaff
Janette Bulkan

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)LoggingBusinessGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)DiscretionPoliticsAccountingPublic administrationGeographyPolitical sciencePublic economicsLawEconomicsForestrySociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small loggers’ associations in Guyana have grown from one to 73 between 2000 and 2014 with over 2 000 members and 4 000 chainsaw millers. They hold 128 2-year renewable harvest licences to 488 Kha, generally in rainforest already degraded by uncontrolled logging. The slippages between government policies and actual practices in respect of the associations are traced through the evolution of chainsaw milling from the mid-1980s. Using the institutional analysis of property theorists, SLAs are shown to be associations in name only. The State regulatory agency controls access to concession licences and the structure and functioning of the associations. The political patronage system, administrative discretion and the short-term licences awarded on the one hand and the individual milling operations of members on the other hand lead to dysfunctional associations. Only 1/3 of the associations have formally registered legal personality and so the majority are ineligible for bank credit or direct donor support.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207