Community conserved areas: policy issues in historic and contemporary context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) are natural and/or modified ecosystems containing biodiversity values, ecological services, and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous and other communities through local or customary laws. They are found in both terrestrial and marine areas; they range in size from <1 ha sacred groves to >30,000 km 2 indigenous territories in Brazil. ICCAs should be recognized for what they may contribute to national and global conservation systems, but there is little documentation of their potential or discussion of their policy implications. Here I examine the historic and contemporary context of ICCAs, provide examples, and raise policy issues related to: assessing the conservation benefits of ICCAs, integrating traditional knowledge into protected area management, finding the right mix of governance regimes, and dealing with challenges faced by them.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".