Planning of human activities based on the views of local authorities in protected areas: the case of Mountain Pelion, Greece
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of this paper is the research into the opinions of the local authorities in the region of Pelion, which is a part of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, with regard to zoning and planning in the region.In particular, the objectives of the present research are: local authorities' views on current planning and zoning (positive and negative), and on theories for future planning and zoning and the desirability/undesirability of their outcomes; the problems (developmental, environmental and social problems concerning the implementation of Natura 2000) faced in the area; the targets local communities would like to see accomplished by Natura 2000 and their suggestions on how these targets could be achieved; and how to solve local problems.The findings and the conclusions of this research reveal a conflict between policymakers and local communities.Much closer collaboration between the two is required before any long-term policy of development can have any chance of success.From this research it was found that local authorities propose: (a) zoning with moderate levels of protection, (b) terms and conditions of protection which focus on hunting and tree-felling and (c) mixed management teams (European, state and local agents.)
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".