A Methodological Framework for Comparative Land Governance Research in Latin America and the Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengthening land governance is critically needed in Latin America and the Caribbean to protect the environment, achieve gender equality in land rights, expand the transparency of land records, and facilitate planned urban growth. Inadequate land administration limits the development of housing markets, tax collection, and the scale and speed of housing and land regularization programs in low-income communities. The region faces major challenges in land tenure informality and overlapping mandates for titling, mapping, and registration. In response to these issues, this technical note identifies the gaps in land governance information for five Latin American and Caribbean countries (Barbados, Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, and Trinidad and Tobago), and provides a comparative methodological framework for field research in these countries. The annex provides Spanish and Portuguese translations of the questionnaire, which includes new questions absent from existing tools, such as the World Bank's Land Governance Assessment Framework and USAID's Blueprint for Strengthening Real Property Rights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".