Analysis of Stakeholder Discourses on Petroleum Exploration and Production in the Brazilian Equatorial Margin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exploration and production (E&P) of oil and natural gas in the Brazilian Equatorial Margin, particularly at the Amazon River Mouth, has become a subject of intense national and international debate. This study analyzes public discourses related to those activities within the context of Brazil’s environmental commitments under the Paris Agreement. The analysis spans the period from President Lula da Silva’s third inauguration, in January 2023, to May 2024, focusing on political and economic approaches. The method involved systematic literature review, discourse analysis, and content analysis, using the Atlas TI software as a content analysis tool to manage, code and categorize textual data. The results show the predominance of the right to development, ecological modernization, and energy clout narratives. The common but differentiated responsibilities narrative is deeply rooted in these dominant narratives and undermines the opposition to oil production in the Brazilian Equatorial Margin. The analysis reveal the complexity of the discursive coalitions formed and simultaneously offers insights to help public policymakers balance economic development, energy security, and environmental sustainability.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".