Development for whom?: an Indigenous environmental justice movement in Bangladesh
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
Indigenous peoples around the world tend to be disproportionately affected by resource extraction activities having access to fewer technical, legal and other resources to participate effectively in the decision-making process. Taking a resistance movement concerning the Phulbari Coal Project in Bangladesh, through qualitative research, this paper examines how Indigenous peoples frame their claims in a mining conflict situation. The Phulbari resistance movement took place more than a decade ago in Bangladesh, however, local Indigenous peoples, Bangalee farming communities, and activists still bear the spirit of the movement. As such, this study seeks to test the claims of how the Indigenous and farming communities, and the actions of national and transnational environmental justice organisations in the Phulbari resistance movement form part of an environmental justice movement. The paper argues that various components of Indigenous resistance and claims may contribute to the overall goals of the environment justice movement against powerful transnational corporations in the global South.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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