MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210354282 · doi:10.1080/08941920.2021.2011996

Practice-Based Knowledge for REDD+ in Vanuatu

2022· article· en· W4210354282 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Carodenuto, Benjamin Schwarz, Anjali Nelson, Godfrey Bome, Glarinda Andre

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety & Natural Resources · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradationGeographyPsychological resilienceGovernment (linguistics)Environmental resource managementClimate changeTraditional knowledgeClimate resilienceEnvironmental planningBusinessResilience (materials science)Political scienceIndigenousEconomicsEcologyCarbon stock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rural populations of small island developing states in the Pacific region are amongst the most exposed to the harsh realities of climate change. Forest management, tree planting, and agroforestry are some of the most promising strategies to build local resilience while providing food and income security in these remote areas. In this paper, we outline the contextual reasons for why deforestation and forest degradation continues, and provide practice-based approaches for REDD + to address deforestation. Our transdisciplinary methods include the construction of seven land use models to compare business-as-usual scenarios with respective REDD + strategies across Vanuatu’s five REDD + islands, combined with a case study of Vanuatu’s first REDD + project. Close collaboration between international researchers, local government officials, and Ni-Vanuatu non-governmental organizations and communities allowed for information sharing across epistemologies, adding local, place-based knowledge to scientific inquiry, responding to calls for more ‘locally led’ approaches to climate adaptation in Vanuatu.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety & Natural ResourcesSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207