Changing Dispute Resolution Institutions in the Ethiopian Pastoral Commons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Pastoralist access and use of common grazing and watering resources in the Horn of Africa increasingly include competition and confrontation over what are perceived to be diminishing resources and/or reduced access. Traditional dispute resolution institutions are presently undergoing change in response to a number of regional and global forces that have varying impacts on different pastoral groups, locations, and resource access arrangements. At the same time state and international donor interest in reducing violent confrontation over access to commons between and within pastoral groups have led to attempts to modify or insert different arrangements for dispute resolution institutions so as to advance varying agendas. \n "This paper will report on Ethiopia's recent experiences with state and donor intervention in the changing institutions of dispute resolution for pastoralist groups. With examples from the Afar of northeast Ethiopia, the Somali of the Southeast, and a set of smaller groups from the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region in the southwest, the paper will explore how dispute resolution institutions are changing, and compare and assess the role of donor and state attempts to advance new institutional arrangements. The role of state boundary, food security, bush encroachment, globalization, and inter-state conflict will likewise be explored in the context of their reciprocal relationship with commons dispute resolution, in order to examine linkages with other problematic issues facing the Horn in the new millennium."
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".