Community Participation In Forest Management In North Bandung
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
Bahruzin. (2014). Analisis Efektivitas Kelembagaan Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM) di Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan (KPH) Bandung Utara Jawa Barat. Bogor: Program Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor. Mulyana, Deddy. (2002). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung : PT Remaja. Rosdakarya. Perum Perhutani. (2001). Pedoman Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Hutan Bersama Masyarakat. Online. http://arupa.or.id/sources/uploads/2012/04/2-SK-Dewan-Pengawas-No.-136-2001-PHBM.pdf Perum Perhutani. (2007). Pedoman Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Hutan Bersama Masyarakat. Online. http://arupa.or.id/sources/uploads/2012/04/5-SK-Direksi-No.-268-tahun-2007-PHBM-Plus.pdf PP Menhut (2014). Online. http://ppkh.dephut.go.id/uploads/attach/P.16-Menhut-II-2014.pdf Salim, Agus. (2001). Teori dan Paradigma Penelitian Sosial. Yogyakarta: Tiara wacana Slamet, Margono. (1985). Pengantar Sosiologi. Jakarta: CV. Rajawali Suparmoko. (1997). Ekonomi Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan. Yogyakarta: BPFE-YOGYAKARTA. Udiansyah. (2009). Perencanaan Hutan adalah Tiang Pengelolaan Hutan Berkelanjutan. Dalam : Soendjoto MA dan Kurnain A, editor. Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dalam Perspektif Kesejahteraan dan Keberlanjutan. Banjarmasin: Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Press. Uphoff, Norman. (1985). Participatory Evaluation of Participatory Development: a Scheme for Measuring and Monitoring Local Capacity. Newyork: Cornell University
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) | 0.000 | 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