Protected areas in mainland Southeast Asia, 1973–2005: Continuing trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1970s, protected area networks in mainland Southeast Asian countries have developed significantly to occupy 4–25 per cent of their respective national areas, located mostly in the mountainous domains of ethnic minority peoples. Through this process, regions that were only nominally part of national geobodies until the 1950s have become more territorially integrated. The complexity of the characteristics and geographical impacts of this territorialisation have yet to be grasped. As a step in this direction, we briefly outline a multilevel systems approach that usefully contextualizes these issues together with a historical and cartographical assessment of the evolution of protected area networks for Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Our main findings are intertwined. On the one hand, protected areas represent a new tool of state intervention in mountainous areas, clearly in keeping with past, notably colonial, actions. On the other hand, this evolution in state territorialisation and attendant power relations have disrupted, far more deeply than previous actions, the pre‐1970s sociogeographical organization in mountainous areas, where most of the region's residual forests remain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".