MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405098764 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-16283

The Persistent Involvement of Chinese Migrants in Small-Scale Mining in Rural Ghana: Role of the “Men” and the “Boys”

2024· dissertation· en· W4405098764 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Parker Afferi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Scale (ratio)PoliticsPolitical scienceEconomic growthGeographyDevelopment economicsSociologySocial scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last two decades, rural Ghana has witnessed a substantial influx of Chinese migrants, who have predominantly engaged in (illegal) small-scale mining (locally known as galamsey) reserved by law for Ghanaian citizens. While the literature has focused on factors that motivate Chinese miners and the impacts of their involvement in Ghana’s SSM, there is relative dearth in examining the factors that sustain Chinese participation, and the responses of Ghanaian actors to Chinese miners’ involvement in the small-scale mining sector. This thesis explores the persistent issue of Chinese migrants’ involvement in Ghana's small-scale mining sector, investigating the collaborative efforts between local actors and Chinese miners. Drawing on Agency and Structure Theory and Political Ecology Theory, the study argues that economic motivations, regulatory gaps, socio-political networks, advanced technique and machinery sustain Chinese involvement in Ghana’s SSM. The patronage system involving “Boys” and “Men” shapes this dynamic, influencing access, protection, and policy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining and Resource Management→French-language works237,207→