MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4233978871 · doi:10.22215/etd/2020-13946

«Qui ne risque rien, n'a rein» : Conflict, Distributional Outcomes, and Property Rights in the Copper- and Cobalt -Mining Sector of the DRC.

2020· dissertation· en· W4233978871 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Katz-Lavigne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Property rightsShadow (psychology)Political scienceDemocracyBusinessEconomyEngineeringGeographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Democratic Republic of Congo is rich in the copper and cobalt for which there is high demand on the world market.In southeastern DRC, large-scale mining (LSM) has a long history, with a recent resurgence following the end of the second civil war in 2003.This revival of LSM investment resulted in the displacement of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) by companies.These conflicts, which have received significant attention in academic literature and policymaking, are sometimes conceptualised as pitting LSM companies against artisanal miners in continuous conflict.Yet structural factors are necessary, but not sufficient to explain the variability of conflict at and around LSM sites.Here, I link conflict incidence to the interactions between three key facets of the property rights (PR) regime at and around LSM sites: corporate enforcement, authorised clandestine extraction, and unauthorised clandestine extraction.I contend that the property rights regime is characterised by overlapping claims that reflect the persistence of clandestine mining within LSM concessions, linked to the fact that outside actors push into the not-quite-hermetic space of the mine.Conflict often erupts in a context of strategic (c)overtness when the cost of providing PR and enforcing informal agreements becomes prohibitive for reasons indirectly linked to resource access, including security guards' need to protect their employment, and companies' reputational concerns.The different security forces that govern authorised clandestine mining also use a range of forceful and non-forceful tactics to "close" LSM sites to unpaid access by artisanal miners, but do not always succeed.The interactions of the different facets also have consequences in terms of the distribution of resources among a range of actors and groups including women, different categories of traders, and ethnic communities.This research highlights that corporate PR are in fact negotiated and contested: the public security forces and other government actors define and enforce other PR, not just companies' property rights, in contexts of "illegality".These findings provide a more fine-grained explanation for LSM-ASM conflict and why artisanal miners frequently operate peacefully at LSM sites, including through local conflict resolution mechanisms that reduce transaction costs hindering agreement.My findings have relevance for many other areas in resource-rich African countries where artisanal miners operate "illegally".

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining and Resource Management→French-language works237,207→