Empowerment of Palm Sugar Peasants at the Forest Edge of Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, Indonesia: A Study of Problems, Local Potentials, and Priority Ideas Towards Empowered Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed the roots of problem of palm sugar peasants at the forest edge of Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park; local potentials in producing palm sugar as a livelihood base; and their priority ideas to create empowered communities. Data collection was done through observation, in-depth interviews, Focused Group Discussion, and literature. The results showed that there were many problems faced by peasants in producing palm sugar, namely the forest where they took firewood was taken over by the national park; discourse on resettlement following the construction of a reservoir; damaged road infrastructure; did not have adequate means of producing palm sugar; uneven government assistance; and marketing of palm sugar through middlemen. In addition to the existing problems, it turns out that there were a number of local potentials that peasants had in developing palm sugar production, namely palm trees growed naturally; palm gardens owned by the peasants themselves; every peasant had sufficient knowledge how to produce palm sugar; palm sugar production was a tradition from generation to generation; solidarity ties were still very strong; the existence of village-owned enterprises; and the concern of the village government to palm sugar peasants. Palm sugar peasants had a number of priority ideas to create an empowered community, namely asking the government to revoke the status of the national park area that took over the forest where peasants take firewood; stopped or moved the reservoir construction plan; road infrastructure improvements; assistance with facilities and infrastructure for producing palm sugar; assistance allocated by the government to prioritize poorer people who had never received before; and standardization of palm sugar prices.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".