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 OpenAlexaff
Aminah Swarnawati, Amiruddin Saleh, Basita Ginting, Endriatmo Soetarto, Arif Satria

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

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. Keyword: conservation, dialogue communication, environmental communication,national park, public sphere ABSTRAK 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. Kata kunci: komunikasi dialogis, komunikasi lingkungan, konservasi, ruang publik, taman nasional

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSodality Jurnal Sosiologi PedesaanSame topicAgricultural and Environmental ManagementFrench-language works237,207