Отношение к природным ресурсам как показатель экологического сознания
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of the land and Forest codes caused a worsening of environmental and social problems in rural areas. Asa matter of nature, especially to the forest becomes more and more consumer. need to adjust legislation is obvious, but for this purpose it is necessary to know the opinion of the population (mainly agriculture) on the causes and indicators of this process. such studies so far have not been carried out, so that this work can be considered as some kind of aerobaticsone of the aims of which encourage the scientific community to monitor the social impact of legislation. A sociological study of peasants was held in spring summer 2012. The first sample survey comprised 350 Pax., the second 171 people. In addition, an in-depth Interview 22-experts by specialists of agricultural enterprises and workers in forest areas of the Nizhny Novgorod region. The main occupation in the village is agriculture. However, the agricultural culture of the past, both objective and subjective reasons. Only a quarter of respondents believed that village people cultivate the land, agronomically sound 52% rated the relationship to sel'hozugod'âm is negative. Summer fires in recent years have exposed many problems related to the protection of forests. The study attempted to ascertain the views of the rural population on the causes of fires, degree of activity to prevent them and to conduct various social institutions and actors during the fires. On the first place in the human factor: negligence of fire (outstanding matches, cigarette butts)-63.1%, 44.4% of the bonfires is outstanding, arson is 21.1%. On the spontaneous combustion (lightning, abandoned glasses etc.) indicated 22.8%. The study revealed the Roman relationship problems and nature, the forest protection service and the local population, the ability of authorities to operate effectively in emergency situations. The study confirmed the need for monitoring the impact of land and Forest codes to correct them.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".