Government Collaboration in Peat Ecosystem Governance in Meranti Islands Regency, Riau Province-Indonesia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study intends to find out how the government collaborates in managing peat ecosystems in the Meranti Islands Regency. This study uses a qualitative methodology and data analysis approach using Nvivo 12 Plus software. The findings of this study indicate that collaboration between the government and stakeholders has resulted in progress on peat restoration in the Meranti Islands Regency because the number of forests and land fires in the Meranti Islands Regency tends to decrease due to this collaboration. Nevertheless, there are still some obstacles to the cooperation, especially the cooperation between actors which is still inadequate because it has not fully involved the private sector. This research contributes in the form of recommendations for improving peat ecosystem governance by increasing the participation of private entities. This study also proposes that further research can comprehensively map the involvement of each stakeholder in the management of peat ecosystems in the Meranti Islands Regency.
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 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 it