Post-Socialist Land Reform in Lao PDR and its Impact on Community Land and Social Equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Post-socialist land reform began to take place in Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR or Laos) during the mid 1990s, recognizing communal and private rights over lands and decentralizing management responsibilities. These are known as the Land and Forest Allocation (LFA) policy that recognizes both communal and private land use and management rights particularly in rural villages and the Land Titling policy, which provides legal documents for land parcels in urban and peri- urban areas securing long-term land use rights and efficient use of land. \n \n "Feudalistic relationship did not develop in Lao PDR prior to the socialist reform which began in 1975. The reform was focused on modernizing agricultural production and attaining food sufficiency. Development of formal institutions on lands only began to surge in the 1990s as the government decided to take a passage towards the market economy in 1986. This also gave a new meaning to land. \n \n "Our study takes an interdisciplinary approach to examine the effect of post-socialist land reform in rural areas of central Laos where land management policies have been implemented. We incorporate spatial analysis to understand the relations between demographic and resource use change. We also incorporate political ecology approach to understand the land use histories in two communities with diverse ethnic composition, and perspectives of different stakeholders with regards to their meaning of land and how they interpret the government policy. Finally, we examine how the new land policies affect access and use of the commons and consider the impact of current land policies on social equity in two communities."
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".