Distributing conservation incentives in the buffer zone of Chitwan National Park, Nepal
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
SUMMARY Since the late 1980s, biodiversity conservation efforts have expanded to incorporate delivering social and economic benefits to communities nearby or within protected areas. Benefits can generate incentives to encourage conservation support; however, such incentive-based programmes (IBPs) have been criticized owing to their inability to provide equal and equitable distribution of benefits. This research examines the distribution of IBPs in the buffer zone of Nepal's Chitwan National Park (CNP). Questionnaire interview data indicate the livelihoods of buffer zone residents remain strained by conservation activities. While benefits under IBPs are recognized by the residents, villages distant from the main tourist entry points to the park where costs associated with conservation are highest recognize few benefits. An individual's level of participation in tourism also affects the benefits received, with those directly employed in tourism receiving the most benefit. Despite the discrepancy in benefit distribution between villages and between levels of involvement in tourism, CNP is making progress in distributing benefits beyond villages where tourism is concentrated. The main IBP flaw in CNP is a limited ability to replicate benefits throughout the buffer zone, providing similar levels of benefit to all villages.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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