Formes d’action collective pour la gestion locale de la forêt camerounaise : organisations « modernes » ou institutions « traditionnelles » ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’implication des populations villageoises est maintenant un passage obligé de tout aménagement de la forêt en Afrique Centrale. Au Cameroun, la concession d’exploitation et la forêt communautaire offrent deux cadres d’implication des acteurs locaux dans la gestion forestière. Cette forme nouvelle d’engagement passe par une identification puis une « officialisation » des « communautés locales » sous la forme de diverses institutions légalement reconnues mais qui relèvent d’un certain nombre de pré-conceptions souvent fallacieuses sur l’organisation des populations locales pour utiliser le milieu naturel. La difficulté majeure de ces types formels de groupement « communautaire » est qu’ils sont détachés des systèmes locaux de parenté. Or ces derniers demeurent la clef d’entrée pour comprendre l’accès et l’usage des ressources par les populations locales.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".