Political Ecology of Development In South Africaâs Wild Coast: Exploring Stakeholder Arguments for and Against Possible Development Strategies
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
Characterized by scenic beauty and biodiversity, yet impoverished peoples, the Wild Coast of South Africa lies at a development crossroads, whereby various land-use proposals offer different outcomes. This thesis sought to analyze various stakeholder arguments in support of development strategies, especially involving the local people and environment. Based on a document analysis and interviews, the predominant development strategies supported were small community development initiatives (SCDIs) and tourism, supported by NGOs, and mining, supported by the private sector yet opposed by NGOs. A major finding was that while government outlines many development âobjectivesâ, successful results are negligible, suggesting that this sector is an overall ineffective determinant for Wild Coast development. NGO and private sectors provided valid arguments in support of their strategies, leaving the researcher to conclude that means of collaboration should be determined in order to best develop the Wild Coast (via SCDIs, tourism, and mining) and improve local livelihoods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it