MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395479753 · doi:10.5509/2024972-art5

Squeezed between Land and Water: Rupture, Frontier-Making, and Resource Conflicts at Cambodia’s Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Dam

2024· article· en· W4395479753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sopheak Chann, Sango Mahanty, Katherine Chamberlin

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCambodian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydropowerFrontierResource (disambiguation)Water resource managementPolitical scienceGeographyEngineeringEnvironmental scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydropower dam projects in the Lower Mekong Basin are part of long-term and interactive land and water transformations, displacement, and violence. Within these ongoing processes, dams represent intense and adverse episodes of disruption that escalate nature-society transformations. Drawing on research at Cambodia's Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Dam (LS2 Dam), we examine how such episodes of nature-society rupture catalyze new waves of frontier-making and mobility that further intensify land and resource struggles. 1 In this ethnically diverse landscape, the abrupt hydrological changes caused by the LS2 Dam have escalated land struggles among various ethnic groups, especially migrants intent on claiming land and water resources, and Indigenous/minority groups displaced by the dam. We show how historical relations with land and socio-political marginalization by the state have produced differentiated opportunities, risks, and frictions among the four main ethnic groups present in this landscape: Indigenous Bunong, Lao, Cham, and Khmer. The LS2 Dam case shows how nature-society rupture reifies frontier dynamics by disrupting existing land/water relations, which precipitates in-migration, new resource claims, and associated conflict along ethnic lines.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicCambodian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207