Comparing polycentric configuration for adaptive governance within community forests: Case studies in Eastern North America
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
Looking at two cases of community forests (CF) in Eastern North America, this article examines their institutional features in order to assess whether they are conducive to adaptive governance. To do so, this article presents CFs as manifestations of polycentric governance, which allow identifying the complex networks of relations existing between different actors involved in governance at many scales. Polycentric governance is assumed to have a higher adaptability to changing factors. To better capture the variables conducive to adaptive governance in CFs, we draw on the socio-ecological system (SES) framework. The study shows that variables from the SES framework are useful in identifying features of polycentricity in CFs. Moreover, these variables highlight mechanisms of adaptability in CF governance, namely: interaction between organizations and actors, multiplicity of complementary rules from different organizations and structures of governance. Moreover, ongoing communication with the forest users and learning among actors appear key for CF governance’s adaptability.
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 | 0.001 | 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