MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119692373 · doi:10.1505/146554813806948558

Commercial community tree-growing inside state forests: an economic perspective from eastern Indonesia

2013· article· en· W2119692373 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A.A. Nawir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Forestry Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomy and Environment Program for Southeast AsiaAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Investment (military)Community forestryLoggingBureaucracyForest managementOrder (exchange)State (computer science)Natural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningAgroforestryForestryGeographyEconomicsFinancePolitical sciencePoliticsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Small-scale timber plantations have increasingly become an important source of wood supply in Indonesia. One important government-driven community tree-growing strategy inside state forests was initiated under the Community Forestry Scheme (CFS). The paper explores the feasibility of this strategy as the basis for developing commercially competitive management. The primary challenge to feasibility had been the high dependency of local communities on land inside state forest for cultivating food and cash crops. Feasibility was also determined by low current standing stocks of planted timber, as a result of illegal logging and forest encroachment under open access conditions due to the delay in involving communities. Ways forward include easing the bureaucratic procedures to hand over exclusive rights in state forest management to local communities. In order to maintain long-term community commitments to the tree-growing programme, it is important to have secured timber benefits, improving community business skills, as well as ensuring cost-effective government investment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Forestry ReviewSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207