What Scope for CMAs to Improve Environmental Income? The Case of Rwenzori Mountains National Park, Uganda
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
"Collaborative management agreements (CMAs) between communities and government agencies managing protected areas are widely promoted as an opportunity for rural households to benefit from their proximity to natural areas. However, such agreements often have high costs of negotiation and frequently yield limited substantive benefits at the household level. Using data from a detailed quarterly income survey undertaken in six communities adjacent to Rwenzori Mountains National Park in western Uganda, this paper addresses the question: do collaborative management agreements have substantive benefits for rural households living adjacent to protected areas? The focus of the analysis is on the role of forest income obtained from the harvesting of goods from within and outside the protected area. Households in communities with collaborative management agreements with the Uganda Wildlife Authority are compared with households in communities that do not have collaborative management agreements. A quasi-experimental research design is used: data collected in 2007 are compared with data collected in 2003 prior to the establishment of the CMAs."
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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