The Existing Legislative, Administrative and Policy Framework for the Mangrove Biodiversity Management & Conservation in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pertinent roles of mangroves have been clearly recognised particularly after the 2004 tsunami. Lots of interests have been created on the importance of sustainable management of mangrove biodiversity, which plays an important role to the environment as well as in the socio-economic growth in coastal zones. As the world’s fifth largest, Malaysian mangroves are facing threats from anthropogenic activities such as deforestation, aquaculture, pollution run off and land development. A signatory to both the Convention of Biological Diversity and UNCLOS, Malaysia has to develop national strategies, plans and programmes by taking legislative, administrative and policy (LAP) measures for the conservation and sustainable use of mangrove biodiversity outlined by these two conventions. Sustainable management of mangrove biodiversity requires proper and effective LAP framework including clear allotment of jurisdictional boundaries between the various departments involved. The existing LAP framework in the management of mangrove biodiversity was examined where three problems were found to hinder the sustainable management of mangrove biodiversity in Malaysia namely the unclear policies, segmented laws and overlapping administrative jurisdictions. These problems collectively contribute to the insufficiency of the existing LAP framework to provide for the sustainable management of mangrove biodiversity in Malaysia.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".