Comparative Study of Environmental Protected Areas Laws and Legislation Between Iraqi and Its Neighbors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural reserves are of great environmental importance as well as being an economic and social resource, as their sites are distinguished as a unique geographical area, those with unique biodiversity, or other unique matters. Countries enact laws, regulations, and legislation regarding these nature reserves to protect them from deterioration, abuse, or over-exploitation of natural resources. From here began the research problem represented by the presence of weaknesses and gaps in the articles of the natural reserve system that negatively affected the management and safety of the reserves compared to regional laws and instructions. The descriptive approach was used in the current study. Accordingly, the most important laws and legislation of some neighbouring and regional countries of Iraq were reviewed, such as the Saudi Executive Regulations for the year 2020, Egyptian Law No. 102 of 1983, and the Jordanian System No. 29 of 2005, as well as Kurdistan Region Regulation No. 9 of 2011. The most important articles of each law and regulation mentioned above were reviewed. The basic subjects were developed for the purpose of comparison, such as requirements, standards, management of the reserve, prohibitions, and activities inside the reserve, as well as the issuance of special instructions for these laws and regulations. The findings show that the instructions for regional countries with sobriety and strength in legislation are stronger than the Iraqi nature reserves system. Also, the study mentioned the most important conditions, standards, and requirements for choosing a reserve.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".