Promoting Learning About Local Food Security by Applying Environmental Education Processes to People in Central Part of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research is twofold: firstly, to examine the level of local food security and the community members’ understanding of environmental education; and secondly, to develop a model that enhances local food security by implementing the environmental education practices of the community residents. Utilized mixed-methods research. Data were gathered via a questionnaire, a group discussion, and a workshop. A total of 378 respondents were chosen for the questionnaire using multi-stage selection, while 45 respondents were chosen using purposive sampling. Furthermore, a total of 32 community volunteers were extended an invitation to participate in the workshop. This study included descriptive statistics and content analysis. The findings indicate that the target communities have an average perception level of 3.19 regarding local food security, while their knowledge about the environment is at a high level of 4.01. The study identifies five key components for establishing local food security, namely: (1) learning local food identity; (2) inheriting local wisdom; (3) transmitting local food knowledge; (4) managing sources of local food; and (5) building local networks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".