MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914306009 · doi:10.22500/sodality.v6i2.23669

Public Sphere and Dialogue Communication about Conservation in Kepulauan Seribu National Park

2018· article· en· W2914306009 on OpenAlex
Aminah Swarnawati, Amiruddin Saleh, Basita Ginting, Endriatmo Soetarto, Arif Satria

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSodality Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Environmental Management
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sphereDialogical selfPublic spacePoliticsPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyPublic administrationEngineeringPsychologyArtSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Conservation programs in Kepulauan Seribu National Park (TNKpS) need communication space in order to attract target group participation, It is necessary for for community of fisherman to talk each regarding conservation policies addressed to.Public sphere defines asa freepolitical and economic domination elements space, existing public sphere in TNKpS have physical or non-physical characteristics, actors either co-opted or not co-opted, and their political public sphere either authentic or un-authentic.There was a two-way dialogical communicatio in public sphere. Dialogue in the public sphere was seen from five types: technical dialogue, debate, genuine dialogue, reconciliation and critical, the results show only the genuine dialogue that occurred.Five obstacles in dialogical communication did not occurred to traditional small fishermen, they were not protective nor defensive to information and were mostly concerned with appropriate information, the time for dialogue is enough. Obstacles tendency to evaluate occurs in critical fishermen.<br />Keyword: conservation, dialogue communication, environmental communication,national park, public sphere</p><p><br />ABSTRAK<br />Program konservasi di Taman Nasional Kepulauan Seribu (TNKpS) membutuhkan ruang komunikasi supaya bisa menarik partisipasi kelompok sasaran, untuk itu diperlukan ruang publik bagi warga untuk saling berdialog membicarakan masalah terkait kebijakan konservasi yang ditujukan kepada mereka. Ruang publik sebagai ruang yang bebas dari unsur dominasi politik maupun ekonomi, baik yang bersifat fisik maupun non fisik, aktornya baik yang dikooptasi maupun tidak dikooptasi, dan ruang publik politiknya baik yang autentik maupun tidak autentik. Dalam ruang publik terjadi komunikasi dialogis yang bersifat dua arah. Dialog yang terjadi di ruang publik dilihat dari tiga jenis: dialog teknis, debat dan dialog asli. Dua elemen penting komunikasi dialogis yaitu listening dan understanding. Ada lima kendala dalam komunikasi dialogis: protektif, defensif, kecenderungan mengevaluasi, ekspektasi yang tidak sesuai dan kurangnya waktu. Penelitian berparadigm kritis dengan pendekatan kualitatif ini menggunakan teori kritis Habermas mengenai ruang publik dan teori tindakan komunikatif dalam perspektif komunikasi lingkungan.<br />Kata kunci: komunikasi dialogis, komunikasi lingkungan, konservasi, ruang publik, taman nasional</p>

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 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.222 · 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