Historicizing the carbon forest: colonial residue, scientific forestry and the making of ‘Nigeria’s last rainforest’
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The novelty claims in carbon forestry often obscure the complex histories and the colonial entanglements of carbon forest socioecologies. This paper argues that the conditions of possibility of carbon forestry in ‘Nigeria’s last rainforest’ are tightly linked to the uneven colonial production of forests across Southern Nigeria. Drawing on archival research, ethnographic fieldwork and analysis of program documents and academic literature, the paper unsettles claims of novelty in Nigeria’s carbon forestry by demonstrating the material continuity between colonial forestry and carbon forestry. Focusing on the development of colonial forestry in Southern Nigeria under British colonial rule, the paper traces the coloniality of scientific forestry as a form of environmental rule, and its entanglements with imperial capitalism and presumptions of racial hierarchy. If the success of scientific forestry in Southern Nigeria meant the draining of Nigeria’s forests as timber export, its failure in Cross River paradoxically produced ‘Nigeria’s last rainforest,’ a literal ‘colonial residue’ . In colonial forestry, as in contemporary carbon forestry, a reductionist knowledge of forests, capitalist interests and a racialized global division of labor all interact in consequential ways. The paper concludes that decolonizing Nigeria’s forestry is a precondition for saving its ‘last rainforest.’
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it