Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reviews concepts and theories of 'environment and security' and examines their relevance in understanding human-mangrove interactions. Scientists and decision-makers are increasingly interested in the relationship between environmental change and human security. Research on human-mangrove interactions suggests that mangrove forests illustrate this relationship well, at least in terms of the general framing of these issues. Mangroves and the diverse resources and services they provide (wood, food and fuel) are critical to the livelihood security of highly vulnerable coastal populations throughout the tropics. At the same time, their restricted coastal distribution, which is often proximate to population concentrations, makes them the frequent loci of conflict between competing human interests. Studies of mangrove planting and human settlement along the coast demonstrate the value of mangroves for protecting property and livelihood from storm impacts. Observations of the Asian tsunami of 2004 further highlight this protective role and provide a stark reminder that environmental sustainability and human security are often inseparable. Yet, broadly framed discussions of environment and security offer little concrete guidance to researchers and policy-makers tasked with understanding and better managing the relationships between people and mangrove forests in particular contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".