{"id":"W1521545449","doi":"10.22004/ag.econ.18752","title":"JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT IN INDIA: ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"preprint","venue":"AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)","topic":"Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":37,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Environment and Forests; International Development Research Centre","keywords":"Joint Forest Management; Forest management; Context (archaeology); Pace; Scope (computer science); Government (linguistics); Certified wood; Geography; Business; Community forestry; State forest; Environmental resource management; State (computer science); Environmental planning; Environmental protection; Forestry; Economics","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009336332,0.001037399,0.0008056432,0.005732975,0.001137848,0.004101908,0.001618782,0.000624929,0.002468637],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01456313,0.0002162121,0.001422415,0.01027031,0.00207013,0.002186063,0.003134642,0.001222346,0.0004914484],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007394665,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005297503,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02459491,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03347789,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9873785,0.004228682,0.0006495923,0.0004859567,0.005694477,0.00156273],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9756816,0.009259996,0.005376465,0.00121174,0.006879982,0.0015902],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.001541606,0.002180821,0.5362195,0.003509873,0.001307146,0.0007415076,0.003163483,0.03753076,0.001907261,0.01400708,0.007978589,0.3899124],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005886825,0.006927276,0.9439149,0.0005994257,0.0008372856,0.0004800937,0.01391174,0.01078596,0.00232032,0.003325473,0.0166491,0.00018951],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9186734,0.005469272,0.00260185,0.001401029,0.0001450035,0.0008568625,0.00277043,0.0002006995,0.06788149],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9939955,0.001979279,0.001510043,0.0001066284,0.00004981609,0.0001575835,0.0006930076,0.00001564034,0.001492692],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.02459491,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05365235,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.04522587652624978,"score_gpt":0.2615272616197676,"score_spread":0.2163013850935178,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}