MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974925282 · doi:10.46468/18531970.13.1.n3

Transnational networks and the adoption of model forests in Argentina

2019· article· en· W2974925282 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ricardo A. Gutiérrez, Mónica Gabay, Isabella Alcañiz

Bibliographic record

VenueREVISTA SAAP · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How are international environmental ideas adopted locally? We an- swer this question by examining the adoption and development of the model forest idea in Argentina since the late 1990s. The concept of model forest was born in Canada in 1991 as the brand name of a new national program aimed at promoting the building of local-level governance processes and arrangements for sustainable forest management. The idea soon started trav- elling worldwide thanks to the Canadian international cooperation agen cies initiatives and became a benchmark of UN programs. Argentina was an early adopter of the model forest idea: in 1996 the Argentine Secretaria for the Environment signed a letter of intent with the International Model For est Network. As a result, six model forests formed throughout the country between 1998 and 2008. We argue that transnational networks of bureau- crats, advocates, and stakeholders help explain how natural resources gover- nance programs travel across countries. We distinguish more technical-driven adoptions from societal-driven ones, as a function of existing levels of con- flict. We expect technical-driven adoptions to take place in contexts of lower levels of conflict and societal-driven adoptions in contexts of higher levels of conflict. This paper is a first step in a broader project that compares the adoption and evolution of community-based forests in Latin America.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREVISTA SAAPSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207