MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313511634 · doi:10.1080/08941920.2022.2161028

“When Will the Tree Grow for Me to Benefit from It?”: Tree Tenure Reform to Counter Mining in Southwestern Ghana

2023· article· en· W4313511634 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Tease, Cassandra Johnson Gaither, Rita Yembilah, Antoinette Tsiboe‐Darko, Priscilla Mensah, Brandon Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety & Natural Resources · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeaseBusinessBureaucracyLand tenurePaymentTree (set theory)LimitingNatural resource economicsGeographyEconomicsAgriculturePolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021, Ghana was Africa’s largest gold producer and sixth largest producer worldwide. However, mining wrecks tremendous environmental havoc and poses significant human health risks. Efforts to mitigate these impacts have focused exclusively on regularizing mining, with little recognition of the crucial role farmers play in mining, particularly as agents that lease their land for the same. Ghana’s new tree tenure policy allows cocoa farmers to acquire individualized, allodial rights to commercial timber species on their farms, which permits famers to capture forestry sector payments. We examine farmers’ impressions of tree tenure reform as a potential counter to mining in eleven communities in Western and Western North regions, using focus group and individual interviews. While the concept of tree tenure is enthusiastically embraced, practical difficulties encountered by smallholders attempting to navigate the bureaucratic registration system limit the sway of tree registration and ownership as a means of limiting mining proliferation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety & Natural ResourcesSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207