Governance of Marine Protected Areas in East Africa: A Comparative Study of Mozambique, South Africa, and Tanzania
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine protected areas (MPAs), including MPA networks, have become an indispensable tool for marine conservation. This article undertakes a comparative discussion of the domestic governance frameworks of Mozambique, South Africa, and Tanzania in view of the efforts of these three states to scale up their MPA cooperation in the East African Marine Ecoregion (EAME) to include MPA networks, including transboundary MPAs. Although on many issues there appears to be regional solidarity and convergence on principles, including participatory processes and decision making to guide MPA making, there are significant differences on lead roles, institutional structures, access to public information, and conflict management, among others, which would need to be factored in MPA cooperation. Other important factors for regional MPA cooperation include policy directions on shared concerns such as conservation and development values with emphasis on equitable resource use and poverty alleviation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it