Security movements in extractive spaces: Dispossession, community-level grievance and resource conflicts in Ghana
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 African extractive sector is increasingly marked by grievance, conflict, and emerging security challenges. Focused on Ghana, this paper delves into community-level grievances and the concomitant security movements within extractive environments. Its central objective is to critically analyze these novel security movements as integral components of natural resource governance in Ghana's mining industry, elucidating their role in exacerbating or mitigating community-level grievances and dispossession. Additionally, it investigates the influence of security-related policies on other community grievances and security movements within natural resource governance. Our investigation reveals that the militarized policy approach to mineral extraction governance triggers new forms of security movements against mining activities. Secondly, we established that the criminalization of galamsey - illegal mining - breeds significant tension and grievance between citizens and the central government. Thirdly, mining companies’ failure to fulfill compensation and benefits agreements creates animosity, which results in violent confrontations with local communities. Finally, as a result, community members resort to resistance as a counter-hegemonic project against the adverse effects of mining activities and ill-willed government policies to manage mineral extraction. The paper, therefore, sheds light on these ‘new form security movements and their implications for community-level conflicts and grievances in Ghana's mining sector.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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