MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598121441 · doi:10.17528/cifor/001258

Rehabilitation of degraded forests to improve livelihoods of poor farmers in South China

2003· book· en· W1598121441 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Liu Dachang, ed.

Bibliographic record

VenueCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · 2003
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Academy of ForestryInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsLivelihoodChinaRehabilitationBusinessGeographyAgroforestryEnvironmental planningForestryEnvironmental scienceAgricultureMedicinePhysical therapyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Degradation of forests and forest lands is a problem in many parts of the world and is particularly serious in south China. Chinese forest policy reforms in recent years have enabled rural households to generate income from forests, to own the trees they have planted, and have offered new opportunities to manage forests sustainably. Rehabilitation of degraded forests and forest lands is one of the possible pathways to improve livelihoods of poor farmers and others in the rural communities. This report documents the results of four case studies in south China in which farmers, local officials and ressearchers anlysed the problems of degraded forests and forest lands, and formulated options for their solution. Opportunities to improve forest management and people's livelihoods are dependent on overcoming a range of biophysical, socioeconomic and political constraints. Action research was used to implement and test some of the options identified. The experience and analysis should be of value for researchers, resource managers and government officials in China and elsewhere to address poverty and environmental concerns through a multidisciplinary, participatory and holistic approach.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooksSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207