Improving the Quality of Life in Coastal Areas and Future Directions for the Asia-Pacific Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article synthesizes lessons and outcomes from the second international Coastal Zone Asia-Pacific conference (CZAP) on “Improving the Quality of Life in Coastal Areas,” held in Brisbane in September 2004. The conference theme was chosen as a follow-up from the first CZAP that identified priority actions in response to the increasing recognition of social issues in coastal management, particularly those aiming to improve the state of the coastal areas in the Asia-Pacific region. The second CZAP explored the “quality of life” theme by placing emphasis on rectifying coastal poverty, sustaining livelihoods, and protecting cultural heritage. Mechanisms to address these issues were explored through international agreements, participatory research, capacity building, and education, as well as the continuing need for integrated planning, environmental management, and effective monitoring and evaluation. A post-conference survey showed that the second CZAP resulted in 122 initiatives (82 underway and another 40 planned) to progress the improvement of quality of life in coastal areas. These initiatives ranged from the establishment of a unit that is responsible for river basin and coastal zone management by the Thua Thien Hue provincial government in Vietnam, to a collaborative on-ground livelihoods project between NGOs, government, and financial institutions on coastal zone management facilitated by the Asian Development Bank. However, the authors argue that two key challenges for ICM in the Asia-Pacific region remain. These challenges relate to the effective monitoring and evaluation of ICM initiatives, as well as matching future ICM initiatives to emergent priority areas.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".