PERAN WORLD WILDLIFE FUND DALAM MENCEGAH PENYELUNDUPAN SATWA LIAR DI INDONESIA
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 to determine the role of the World Wildlife Fund in preventing the smuggling of wildlife in Indonesia and determine the obstacles experienced by the World Wildlife Fund in preventing the smuggling of wildlife in Indonesia. The author will focus on one issue, namely the role of WWF in preventing the smuggling of elephant ivory . World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organizations that deal with issues of conservation, research and restoration of the environment, formerly named the World Wildlife Fund and is still the official name in Canada and the United States. WWF is the largest independent conservation organization in the world with over 5 million supporters worldwide who work in more than 100 countries, supporting around 1,300. The method used in this paper is descriptive analytical method. This study shows that there are some roles carried out by WWF in preventing the smuggling of elephant ivory as a motivator, a communicator, an intermediary, organizational, legislative. Keywords: WWF, the smuggling of elephant ivory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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