Environmental Perspectives to the Rejection of Javanese Karst Mining in Systematic Literature Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study presented in this literature review aims to ascertain community perspectives on the rejection of mining in the Javanese karst regions, guided by the question, "Is the population in Javanese karst regions more ecocentric?"The methodology employed is a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), which includes 29 literature reviews following the preferred reporting items for SPAR-4-SLR.Sources for the literature review were retrieved from several databases, including Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and GARUDA.An analysis of the perspectives adopted by Javanese karst communities, as discussed in each article, reveals a majority adherence to ecocentrism (13 manuscripts), followed by anthropocentrism (9 manuscripts).This dichotomy highlights the sources of conflict, such as in the Pangandaran karst in West Java, or manifest conflicts, as in the Pati and Rembang karsts in Central Java.For anthropocentric communities, the supporting factors include the backing of village officials, economic necessities, traditional livelihoods, and the presence of pre-existing mines.In contrast, ecocentric communities base their arguments on reliance on the agricultural sector, environmental awareness or activism, support from pro-environment networks, and the presence of indigenous peoples.The recommendation put forward here is specifically directed at local governments that have yet to designate karst landscapes as protected areas within their jurisdictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.143 | 0.336 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".