MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407402491 · doi:10.4000/13b4x

Conservation coercitive et (in)visibilité sociale des conflits dans le district de Hwange, au Zimbabwe

2024· article· fr· W4407402491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zénaïde Dervieux

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRural districtGeographyPolitical scienceSociologySocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Zimbabwe, les habitants des zones communales du district de Hwange ont été expulsés de leurs terres peu après le début de la colonisation à des fins d’exploitation minière (extraction de charbon), de production agricole (fermes coloniales) et de conservation de la nature (création des espaces protégés, dont le parc national de Hwange, le plus vaste du pays). En dépit de l’instauration d’un programme innovant de gestion communautaire, les injustices associées à la conservation de la nature demeurent prégnantes. Cette contribution examine, à partir de matériaux ethnogéographiques, l’a-conflictualité apparente des faits sociaux dans le district de Hwange en tenant compte des situations autoritaires qui entourent les espaces vécus quotidiens. Elle instruit une hiérarchie du visible entre des conflits passés sous silence (occupation de terres, revendications d’accès aux espaces protégés et aux anciennes fermes coloniales) et des conflits qui ne le sont pas (interactions humain-faune). L’entrée conceptuelle proposée met au jour une grille de lecture de la conflictualité en périphérie des espaces protégés d’Afrique subsaharienne interrogeant l’expression des conflits dans des zones soumises à une conservation aux formes coercitives.

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)0.003
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicAfrican history and culture analysisFrench-language works237,207