MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011237504 · doi:10.17528/cifor/007556

The context of REDD+ in Myanmar: Drivers, agents and institutions

2020· book· en· W3011237504 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Oo T.N., Hlaing E.E.S., Aye Y.Y., N. Chan, Maung N.L., Phyoe S.S., Thu P., Phạm T.T., Maharani C., M. Moeliono, Adi G., Bimo Dwisatrio, Kyi M.K.M., San S.M.

Bibliographic record

VenueCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center For Environmental AssessmentConsortium of International Agricultural Research CentersMinistère de l'Énergie et des Ressources NaturellesJapan International Cooperation AgencyUnited Nations Development ProgrammeBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und ReaktorsicherheitBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und VerbraucherschutzInternational Centre for Integrated Mountain DevelopmentGlobal Environment Facility
KeywordsContext (archaeology)BusinessPolitical scienceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a forest resource-rich country, but is also facing serious deforestation and forest degradation problems. Currently, Myanmar's forest still covers more than 40% of the country's land area (Aung (2001) but 70% of its population live in rural areas, and the agricultural sector is the main contributor to the country's gross domestic product (GDP) (30%) (World Bank 2014). The country faces the all-too-common dilemma of how to develop its economy while at the same time curbing environmental degradation and contributing to carbon emissions reduction. In 2013, Myanmar adopted a REDD+ program and started its preparatory phase. Myanmar established and developed its National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS) and Reference Emission Levels (RELs) for REDD+ following the guidance and modalities set out by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Implementing REDD+ requires political commitment to address direct and indirect drivers of deforestation, an adequate funding mechanism that is based on a thorough analysis of all costs and benefits, a transparent and equitable benefit-sharing mechanism, and a participatory decision-making approach in which all stakeholders can take part in REDD+. The Global Comparative Study on REDD+, together with its country partners, is compiling profiles of 14 countries to better understand the socioeconomic contexts in which REDD+ policies and processes emerge.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooksSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207