Local Wisdom in the Environmental Management of a Community: Analysis of Local Knowledge in Tha Pong Village, Thailand
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
The objective of this research is to study knowledge management regarding sustainable environmental management and the protection of natural resources. In this study, the researchers used a qualitative method with fieldwork observation, in-depth interviews of twenty key informants, and a focus group comprised of thirty-three people to discuss and participate in sustainable environmental management and natural resource protection. The data were analyzed using content and descriptive analyses. We found that the knowledge management of the community was divided into two types: 1) knowledge management of an internal community, such as knowledge exchanged between a community’s members; and 2) knowledge management of an external community, such as knowledge exchanged between communities. Likewise, in the development of a community practice, a community’s members participated in creating groups for specific activities, such as a group for saving money and a group for handicraft production.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it