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
This study aims at comparing and analyzing the marine cadastre system in the foreign countries, deriving its issues and a reasonable decision, and then building up the foundation for the introduction of the marine cadastre system. For this, the marine cadastre operation system proceeding in the costal countries was studied in order to understand the foreign marine cadastre system and to establish it firmly in the country. A framework for comparative analysis was designed, with considering the countries of which the marine cadastre system was developed in a coastal zone and a comparative domain and a factor, making it possible to compare their marine cadastre operating system. The research range was limited to the operation system of the marine cadastre system, and this was applied to USA, Canada, Australia and Indonesia. A secondary data through the reference of literature was collected as the research method, then the marine cadastre theory was built based on this. The study approach was both comparative and descriptive. The study conclusion is as follows: First, the marine cadastre system was divided into a low, a system and a technology and was analyzed and investigated, considering the following details such as the relevant regulation, registration management, a registration object, a marine policy, the relevant organization, spatial data infrastructure, a surveying method, a marine map, etc, and a preview of a policy based on this matter was suggested. Second, the cadastre system introduction is based on the institutional supporting by the arrangement of the relevant law based on the basic law and through the adjustment of a policy and an organization and a regulation to an access channel, the technical supporting to build up the marine cadastre management system and to draw its map, and the conversion of a general understanding of the marine differently.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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