MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1662601996 · doi:10.17474/acuofd.83376

ARTVİN İLİ ORMAN KÖYLERİNİN SOSYO-EKONOMİK ÖZELLİKLERİ

2008· article· tr· W1662601996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Devlet Toksoy, Hüseyin Ayaz, Gökhan Şen

Bibliographic record

VenueDergiPark (Istanbul University) · 2008
Typearticle
Languagetr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Animal husbandryGeographySocioeconomicsPopulationAgricultureRural populationForestryAgricultural economicsEconomic growthSociologyArchaeologyEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest villages have been considered apart from the villagers who live on the other rural areas in Turkey since the last quarter of the XIX th century. This type of villagers is supported to the priority for the forest works and to purchase reduced prize for the forest products. On the other hand these villagers are also instructed and exhorted about the subjects like animal husbandry, carpet business etc. However, these villagers are the poorest part of the society at the moment. This study is based on a direct interview survey which was performed to 100 householders from 15 villages to determine the demographic, social, cultural, economic etc. characteristics of villagers and to assist in reaching positive results by using these characteristics in prepared various plans. According the results, the rate of university education is 4% and the active population corresponds to 70%. The 31% of forest villagers are get along with agriculture, only 1 % of the sampled people are get along with forestry. Furthermore, none of the people thinks that forestry is the first level job opportunity for their future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDergiPark (Istanbul University)Same topicAgricultural and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207