MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794699557 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n2p52

Utilizing Non-Timber Extraction of Swamp Forests over Time for Rural Livelihoods

2018· article· en· W2794699557 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisa Wildayana, M. Edi Armanto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwampLivelihoodAgroforestryGeographySubsistence agricultureAgricultureForestryEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research aimed to analyze utilizing non-timber extraction of swamp forests over time for rural livelihoods. This research was carried out in swamp forests of Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI) District, South Sumatra, Indonesia. The data were collected by direct field observation, intensive study of archive report documents as well as in-depth interviews with the respondents. Before 2000, rural communities could be mentioned to be relatively concerned about the status of forest and land resources because they have utilized forest and land resources following customary regulations. Various types of products extracted by their priority are fuel material, food sources, medicine and pharmacy, raw materials for handicrafts, structures and other uses. After 2000, there have been significant changes in forest and land resources being used for other purposes, e.g. agroforestry, plantation, agriculture, fodder, thatching grass, woven mats (from purun), rope webbing, leaves, resins, dyes, manure and others. These activities have caused degradation of swamp forest. To minimize the impact of swamp forest degradation, the active participation involvement of the rural community and all other stakeholder components is essential to optimize swamp forest management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207