Analisis Kebijakan Pengelolaan dan Budidaya Ekosistem Gambut di Indonesia: Penerapan Pendekatan Advocacy Coalition Framework
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
Indonesia has a peat area of around 14.91 million hectares and has become the fourth largest owner of peat reserves in the world after Canada, Russia and the United States. Peatlands play a major role as carbon sinks and maintain a hydrological system. The destructive and oxidized characteristics of peat make the International and Indonesian Governments pay high attention to the management and protection of peat ecosystems. Through the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) approach, this study found that there are a variety of actors and stakeholders who influence the dynamics of peat management and cultivation policy formulation in Indonesia. The actors and stakeholders formed a coalition by carrying out the logic of their respective belief systems, namely: Coalition A which has a belief system that peat land is a potential resource developed for cultivation and Coalition B which has a belief system that views peat ecosystems as vulnerable ecosystems that must be protected and rehabilitated. The results of this study are expected to be able to provide recommendations needed in realizing sustainable management of peat ecosystems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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