Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a developing state, such as Zanzibar, registration of lands is not a laid-back method for the government to completely finance. Different approaches have been introduced and undertaken by the government of Zanzibar to fully reap the benefits of land registration. These however remain a myth, as what was expected from registering at least half of Zanzibar has not yielded the exact outcome. The government initiatives consist of enacting proper legislation, reforming the land policy, introducing national agendas and receiving foreign financial contribution. Based on the policies, laws and literatures, this study assessed the most appropriate framework upon which lands can be registered reliably and speedily. The qualitative data analysis method was applied, as this was purely traditional doctrinal legal research. This study used a case study design and specifically focused on the appraisal of the land registration records in Zanzibar. The targeted population for the interviews was the employees under the Commission for Lands responsible for land adjudication and registration. From the population of 195, a total of 27 officers were purposively sampled, nine of which were officers on land adjudication and the remaining 18 were on land registration. Qualitative data was analysed by narrative analysis, which seeks to understand the experiences and perspectives. The findings of the study are presented in narrative and descriptive reporting form. The results showed that the reality on the ground remains to be alarming as less than 10% of the land has currently been registered. The results further showed that the Office of the Registrar of Lands has no leading role in land registration, lack of institutional support, non-applicability of physical planning standards prior to registration, expensive land survey methods, limited application of electronic facilities, human resources and financial capacity. In order to reach the objective of the government on registering all lands of Zanzibar, this study recommends improvement of the Office of the Registrar of Lands, integrating planning standards, choosing cheaper demarcation costs and most importantly introducing electronic land registration system.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".