MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393253400 · doi:10.4103/cs.cs_23_23

Participation, Learning and Environmental Justice: A Case Study of Protected Area Planning and Management in the Kullu District of Himachal Pradesh, India

2024· article· en· W4393253400 on OpenAlexaff
Ariane Dilay, A. John Sinclair, Alan P. Diduck, James S. Gardner

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental justiceEconomic JusticeProcedural justiceSocioeconomicsLocal governmentPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental resource managementPublic administrationSociologyPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Achieving environmental justice in protected area (PA) planning and management has been historically problematic. Herein, potential connections between learning outcomes acquired through PAs and advancements in environmental justice are examined and assessed through a case study of PAs in the Kullu District of Himachal Pradesh, India. Specifically, our study aimed to identify learning outcomes that contributed to positive changes in distributive, procedural, recognitional and restorative justice for local people managing or residing near PAs. As throughout the Himalayas, the land use rights, both customary or recognised by law, of local inhabitants in the Kullu District have been altered and eroded through the establishment of PAs, which has resulted in poor environmental justice outcomes. Interviews were conducted with local people living near PAs, forest officers working in PAs, relevant government officials, academics, and NGO representatives. The results indicate that non-formal and informal learning has produced positive cognitive and relational changes in local inhabitants as well as forest officers, which has led to modification of policies, positive environmental change, and enhanced aspects of environmental justice. Though positive changes emerged, the study also identified a need for increased learning opportunities, particularly for inhabitants of more remote areas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation and SocietySame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207