MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176691476 · doi:10.20886/jwas.v8i1.6175

Analysis of Tenurial Conflict of the Bunaken National Park (A Case Study of Mantehage Island)

2021· article· en· W3176691476 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Wasian · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Environmental Management
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary (topology)National parkSettlement (finance)GeographyHuman settlementDecreeLand coverLand useEnvironmental protectionNature ConservationForestryEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningArchaeologyEcologyEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bunaken National Park was designation based on the Decree of the Minister of Forestry Number: SK. 734 / Menhut-II / 2014. Boundary demarcation process of Bunaken National Park in Mantehage Island was rejected by the community due to land claims in the form of gardens and settlements. This study puposes to answer how the state of land cover and use of the Mantehage Island and how the tenurial conflicts. The analysis used is spatial analysis and Rapid Land Tenure Assessment (RaTA). The results indicate that land cover and use consisted of primary mangrove forests, dry land agriculture, mixed gardens, scrub, settlements and roads. Conflict occurred between the community and the Forest Area Boundary Committee for North Minahasa Regency because the community did not understand the boundary demarcation activitiess and regulations that could provide a solution to their land conflict problems. Conflict resolution mechanisms that can be taken is the settlement of third-party rights in boundary demarcation process, review of spatial planning and conservation partnerships.

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.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · 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