Report on Discussion Forum on Information Services in the Asia-Pacific and ACRIS/CARIS in the 21st Century: An Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation
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
"Many forestry projects in the Asia-Pacific region now encompass information as part of their mandate, including, for example, assistance with publishing, creation of information centres, document delivery and technology development. A number of organisations in the region share common objectives to develop capacity in the forestry research sector. To this end, representatives of the ASEAN Forest Tree Seed Centre (AFTSC) Project, ASEAN Institute of Forest Management (AIFM), Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), International Development Research Council (IDRC) and CAB International (CABI), and the Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and the Pacific (FORSPA) have proposed solutions through collaborative activities. \n \n"A proposed regional forum of key people in the Asia-Pacific, to discuss forestry information services needs and opportunities, was preceded by data gathering from specific institutions in the region. Aquestionnaire surveyed the facilities and support for information services units in forestry institutions throughout the Asian-Pacific region. \n \n"This report details the results of that survey and the proceedings of the Discussion Forum on Information Services in the Asia-Pacific held at Bogor, Indonesia, from 30 October to 1 November 1996. The list of perceived needs generated by the survey guided the deliberations of the Forum. Participants identified priority goals, action plans for their achievement and responsible agents/agencies, expected time frames and likely costs. The priority goals agreed upon by the group were: \n--To demonstrate the value of information in contributing to a country's development. \n--To improve the ability of Information Services Unit (ISU) staff to pro-actively meet user demands. \n--To establish a core of well-trained ISU staff and users through an integrated programme of training. \n--To improve effectiveness of forestry information services by providing access to e-mail and the Internet, and establishing a list server."
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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