Asia Regional Workshop on Compensation for Ecosystem Services : a component of the global scoping study on compensation of ecosystem service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, together with Forest Trends, Washington DC, The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, Corporacion Grupo Randi Randi, Quito, Ecuador, the African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya, the Institute for Economic and Social Research, Bangalore, India, and the United Nations Environment Programme – Division for Environmental Law and Conventions, Nairobi, Kenya, is leading a scoping study for the International Development Research Centre (IDRC-Canada) on the model of payments for environmental services (PES) as applied in developing countries, to determine how the poor are affected by these schemes and whether the schemes are compatible with poverty reduction objectives. As a key part of the study, a 3-day workshop is being held in each focal region. The Asia Regional Workshop was held in Bangalore, India from 8 -10 May 2006 at the Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources (CEENR) of the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC). The event brought together 39 participants from across the region, including India, Indonesia, Nepal and Sri Lanka, as well as the project coordination team from the Nairobi headquarters of The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Delegates represented international and national-level organizations, academic bodies, NGOs, consulting firms and donor agencies. This report covers the proceedings of the workshop. It includes summaries of all presentations made (22) as well as summaries of the panel discussions and the open discussions held after the presentations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".