Analysis of Tenurial Conflict of the Bunaken National Park (A Case Study of Mantehage Island)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bunaken National Park was designation based on the Decree of the Minister of Forestry Number: SK. 734 / Menhut-II / 2014. Boundary demarcation process of Bunaken National Park in Mantehage Island was rejected by the community due to land claims in the form of gardens and settlements. This study puposes to answer how the state of land cover and use of the Mantehage Island and how the tenurial conflicts. The analysis used is spatial analysis and Rapid Land Tenure Assessment (RaTA). The results indicate that land cover and use consisted of primary mangrove forests, dry land agriculture, mixed gardens, scrub, settlements and roads. Conflict occurred between the community and the Forest Area Boundary Committee for North Minahasa Regency because the community did not understand the boundary demarcation activitiess and regulations that could provide a solution to their land conflict problems. Conflict resolution mechanisms that can be taken is the settlement of third-party rights in boundary demarcation process, review of spatial planning and conservation partnerships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".