MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414124633 · doi:10.1080/03066150.2025.2549906

The politics of paper landscapes: making sense of ‘bad’ numbers in the global land rush

2025· article· en· W4414124633 on OpenAlexaff
Michael B. Dwyer, Juliet Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Peasant Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersIndiana University Bloomington
KeywordsPoliticsLand grabbingLand useLand reformGlobal South

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A decade after the methodological debates of the late 2000s land-rush scholarship, this paper asks why it has been – and why it remains – so hard to get good land-deal numbers. We review the state of land-deal quantification using the example of the Land Matrix. We then use the case of China’s state support for Chinese agribusiness investment in Laos to locate the ongoing trouble of ‘bad’ land-deal numbers in the politics of ongoing state formation. In doing so, we show how bad numbers are often an effect of the same internal state dynamics that facilitate land grabbing in the first place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Peasant StudiesSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207