MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306961290 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.170609

Assessment of Village and Community Forest Sustainability: Evidence from the Local Level

2022· article· en· W4306961290 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ade Wahyu, Didik Suharjito, Dudung Darusman, Lailan Syaufina

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityForest managementBusinessEnvironmental resource managementSustainable forest managementForestryEcologyGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of social forestry, particularly at the local level, must ensure ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The sustainability level assessment from various Social Forestry of Perhutanan Sosial (PS) schemes is crucial to recognize, evaluate, and improve its implementation at the local level. Therefore, this study aims to assess the sustainability level and identify the lever indicators of the sustainability of Village Forest or Hutan Desa (HD) and Community Forest or Hutan Kemasyarakatan (HKm) management as the two largest schemes of PS. The Rapid Appraisal for Village and Community Forest (RapVCF) with Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) approach was developed to assess the sustainability of the three HD and HKm cases. The results revealed that HKm SB had the highest sustainability value compared to the three HD and two other HKm. HKm SB is considered relatively sustainable, with a sustainability value above 50 in ecological, economic, and social dimensions. In general, economic and social dimensions have a lower sustainability value compared to the ecological dimension. Some indicators play a pivotal role to the sustainability level of HD and HKm, namely conditions and changes in forest cover, the manageable area, market coverage, income for forest management, claims/mastery of working areas, and benefit distribution mechanisms. Evaluation and improvement of these indicators must be prioritized to increase the sustainability level of HD and HKm.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.272
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207