Potential for integrated landscape approaches: A review of Ghana’s national environment and development policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Key messages</b> <ul><li.This brief explores Ghana’s national environment and development policy climate and whether it is conducive to operationalizing an integrated landscape approach (ILA).</li> <li>Ghana’s policy framework is geared towards large-scale, near-term development, raising questions regarding environmental impacts and related socioeconomic reverberations. Concerns surrounding future development plans stem from Ghana’s past and present challenges with competing land uses.</li> <li>Ghana has many policies and management schemes that support reconciling conservation and development needs; however, barriers to implementation persist.</li> <li>Challenge areas include: establishing a transparent change logic that is understood and endorsed across sectors and stakeholder groups. This requires identifying common concern entry points and clarifying rights and responsibilities.</li> <li>We suggest a greater commitment to these principles and the adoption of a landscape approach hold potential to enhance social and ecological outcomes in Ghana. Engaging with Ghana’s existing Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) program is an opportunity in this regard. </li> </ul>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".