Land in Liberia: The Initial Source of Antagonism Between Freed American Blacks and Indigenous Tribal People Remains the Cause of Intense Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines factors of land grabbing in Liberia, especially from tribal communities, due originally to different social expectations regarding land and contracts between indigenous people and settlers from America. In addition, land appropriation throughout the history of the Liberian nation is due largely to the Americo-Liberian oligarchy and public corruption. The study analyzes survey, empirical, and concession contracts data gathered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Sustainable Development Institute, Government of Liberia, Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia, and United Nations Mission in Liberia. It then correlates associations between a number of concession companies, their land acreage under operation, county acreage, and incidence of land grabbing to demonstrate an increase in disputes during the early 2000s due to practices of corrupt public officials. This has resulted from the consistent implementation of inequitable land laws, which have perpetuated land transfer from tribal communities to mostly Americo-Liberian descendants and foreign concessionaires. This land appropriation has fostered public corruption, increased land related disputes, and raised the level of conflict in Liberian society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".