MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285021218 · doi:10.1080/02646811.2022.2087340

Artificial intelligence and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative as anti-corruption tools for Canadian extractive companies

2022· article· en· W4285021218 on OpenAlexaffabout
Oludolapo Makinde, Philippe Le Billon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy & Natural Resources Law · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Language changeCorporate governanceNatural resourceBusinessPolitical scienceFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers the promise of improving natural resource governance, including addressing bribery and corruption risks. The mobilisation of computing power requires access to large amounts of data, a task facilitated by disclosure instruments. This paper examines the rationale and potential of artificial intelligence and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) as anti-corruption tools, with a focus on extractive companies based in Canada. The paper concludes that the integration of AI and the EITI Standard holds some promise to curtail corruption in extractive sectors, despite some ethical, legal and practical challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy & Natural Resources LawSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207