MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Forest conservation and restoration using eco‐loan financing (ELF) in Costa Rica: report on a working model

2011· article· en· W1596627028 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Evelyne T. Lennette, Luis V. Villa, Randall Varela Chaves, Manrique Esquivel Villalobos, Alvaro Ugalde Viquez

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentTides Canada
KeywordsBusinessLoanFinanceReforestationAgroforestryForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nectandra Institute, a small U.S. nonprofit organization based on private philanthropy, initiated a zero (monetary) interest loan program (Eco‐Loan Financing, or ELF) to qualifying rural community water management associations to buy watershed land in northern Costa Rica. Each borrowing community repays the capital and eco‐interest (e.g., reforestation , regeneration of native forest on the properties, watershed restoration and management, continuing environmental education, etc). The project's effectiveness since 2007 in achieving its conservation and education objectives was due to: (1) the facility and flexibility of the negotiations between borrowers (entire communities) and lender (conservation promoter), (2) the communities’ involvement and enthusiastic acceptance of the project's ecosystem conservation insured its post‐loan continuance at the grassroots level, (3) the rapid reloaning of repaid capital fund, thereby amplifying the donors’ investment several times, and (4) the potential for its replication and scalability elsewhere in Central America.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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