MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979472198 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.13500

Diversité floristique et valeur de la forêt sacrée Bokasso (Est de la Côte d’Ivoire) pour la conservation

2013· article· fr· W1979472198 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adou Yao, Círculo de trabajo ecuménico de teólogos evangélicos y..., Kpangui, K.B., Kouao, Janko Kos, Adou, L. D., Vroh, Barranco Tenorio A, N’guessan N’GUESSAN, Khoerunisa Utami Putri E

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCote d ivoireForestryGeographyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La région forestière située à l’Est de la Côte d’Ivoire a été marquée par un ensemble d’activités anthropiques qui a entraîné sa dégradation. Dans cette région, les forêts sacrées, constituent aujourd’hui, pour certains départements comme celui de Transua, les quelques reliques encore intactes de la forêt qui s’étendait jusqu’au Ghana. L’une d’elles, appelé Bokassô a fait l’objet d’une étude dont les objectifs sont : (1) la détermination de sa superficie par cartographie, (2) l’inventaire botanique et (3) la détermination de sa valeur pour la conservation. Les résultats obtenus indiquent que la forêt couvre une superficie de 54.9 ha pour une richesse de 188 espèces végétales regroupées en 154 genres et 64 familles. La composition floristique montre qu’il s’agit d’un fragment de forêt dense humide semi-décidue bien conservé. Cette forêt abrite 30 espèces de plantes à statut particulier qui lui confèrent une grande valeur pour la conservation. Toutefois, de nombreuses activités anthropiques pratiquées menacent l’intégrité de la forêt sacrée Bokassô.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207