Cartographic Enclosure and Urban Cadastral Mapping in the Ethiopian Somali Capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cadastral maps, which are designed as comprehensive systems for recording and surveying land relations, are critical for making society legible and governable. However, critical cartography scholarship suggests that exercising power through maps is not straightforward: It is dependent on how maps are created and used during the mapping process. This paper examines cadastral mapping in Jigjiga, a multi-ethnic city in the Ethiopian Somali frontier where state authority over land and people have long been contested among ethnic Somali residents. This paper follows the ruling government’s renewed attempt to establish land control through spatial planning based on document analysis and ethnographic fieldwork. It investigates how urban planners enclose the city’s property landscape cartographically on land use maps and how land surveyors used these maps to georeference property. It demonstrates the critical role of land governance experts in navigating the simplified map and a complex property landscape on the ground. Cadastral mapping is instrumental for state territorialization and land commodification, integrating ethnic Somali property into the sedentary logic of the state. Rather than providing an account of how property is rendered legible, this paper highlights the incomplete and open-ended character of cadastral mapping in the constitution of private property regimes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".