Conservation and Indigenous resistance: Protected Areas and extractive agendas in the Peruvian Amazon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expanding natural protected areas in the Peruvian Amazon compete with indigenous interests and resource extraction, in a dynamic process of endorsement and enforcement by local indigenous communities. The analysis presents a geographical case study of Peru’s emblematic Camisea gas extraction project in the Amazonian Lower Urubamba valley, Cusco. The focus is on two protected areas —Matsigenka Communal Reserve and Megantoni National Sanctuary— that were created alongside the gas project in the early 2000s, strategically supported by local indigenous communities. The study argues that the intersections of extractive and conservation agendas in Camisea have created ambiguous and novel spaces for the expression of local indigenous agendas, while neoliberal conservation territorial logics simultaneously limit them. This empirical analysis contributes to a deeper empirical understanding of Indigenous conservation priorities, political demands, and long-term strategies regarding territorial and legal categories of conservation, carefully negotiated within highly fragmented and weak formal institutional state arrangements in the Peruvian Amazon.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".