Bibliographic record
Abstract
La chasse est une activité importante tant au niveau économique que pour la conservation de la faune. À partir d’une revue extensive de la littérature, cet article documente cinq problématiques majeures entourant le tourisme de chasse : les conflits entre usagers, l’image négative de la chasse, la méconnaissance du marché, les difficultés de promotion de la chasse et le manque de relève. Afin d’assurer la présence d’un bassin suffisant de chasseurs touristiques, l’article propose de concentrer les efforts dans l’amélioration de la connaissance du marché, ce qui aura un effet direct ou indirect sur les autres problématiques. Les auteurs concluent avec des suggestions d’axes de recherches appliquées afin de remédier aux cinq problématiques majeures. L’article vise à aider les gestionnaires privés, publics, associatifs et les citoyens dans leurs efforts pour assurer la pérennité du tourisme de chasse dans un esprit de développement durable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".