MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391472959 · doi:10.1177/10704965241231550

Unpacking the Food Security Crisis in the Ecologically Fragile and Conflict-Ridden Lake Chad Basin: Interrogating NGOs' Response to the Climate Change-Security Nexus

2024· article· en· W4391472959 on OpenAlexaff
Lotsmart Fonjong, James Emmanuel Wanki

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Environment & Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNexus (standard)UnpackingFood securityClimate changeEnvironmental securityPolitical scienceFood insecurityNatural resource economicsGeographyEnvironmental resource managementDevelopment economicsEconomicsEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 2018 United Nations report highlights the growing need for funding and assistance to the Lake Chad Basin (LCB). The food security crisis in the LCB is a blend of complex factors relating to the declining water of Lake Chad and protracted insecurity fanned by Boko Haram insurgency. Unfortunately, development agencies sometimes focus less on how the climate change-insecurity nexus is becoming increasingly consequential in explaining the LCB’s profile in fragility. This paper considers the extent to which international agencies and nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) respond to multiple crises, integrating both climate change and security facets in their analysis and response to the food crisis besetting the LCB. Findings from interviews in Cameroon, Chad, and Niger reveal that NGOs fail to sufficiently take climate change into account in their policies and strategies, in that many food assistance programs are climate change neutral in content and focus.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
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 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Environment & DevelopmentSame topicTransboundary Water Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207