MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285412044 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81881-4_3

Who Defines Land Tenure Security? De Jure and De Facto Institutions

2022· book-chapter· en· W4285412044 on OpenAlex
Brian E. Robinson, Moustapha Diop

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDe factoLand tenureStatutory lawLand lawProperty rightsPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLand rightsLawEconomicsGeographyEnvironmental planningAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many land tenure situations are not necessarily defined and adjudicated by governments, that is, at a statutory level. In some cases, these may be defined by a local community and be upheld and resolved locally. This chapter reviews how de jure land rights (those defined by law) and de facto land rights (the “on the ground” and sometimes implicit rights or management activities, sometimes referred to as customary or traditional rights) differ. We examine how land tenure insecurity can plague both these cases and argue that making de jure and de facto situations congruent is necessary for a path toward a more sustainable future.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207