MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981103051 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.1954

Éducation environnementale et  programmes d’alphabétisation au Burkina Faso

2003· article· fr· W1981103051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maxime Compaoré

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Burkina Faso, pays sahélien, a une économie essentiellement basée sur l’agriculture. Près de 80% de la population est analphabète et vie de l’agriculture et de l’élevage dans un contexte climatique pas toujours favorable. Dans son histoire, le pays a connu des cas de sécheresse qui ont contribué à accroître la pauvreté et la misère des populations. La question de l’eau est centrale pour ce pays pauvre, enclavé au cœur de l’Afrique occidentale. Chaque année, les pénuries d’eau sont très fréquentes aussi bien en milieu rural qu’en milieu urbain. Dans un tel contexte, comment promouvoir une éducation axée sur une bonne gestion des rares ressources existantes ? Une des solutions préconisées pour la réduction de la pauvreté en général et le développement endogène en particulier réside dans l’organisation de campagnes d’alphabétisation (formation/sensibilisation). L’approche utilisée est participative et touche des sujets très sensibles telles que l’eau, l’hygiène, la santé, …Notre communication se penche d’une part, sur la prise en compte de la question de l’eau dans l’organisation des cours d’alphabétisation, et d’autre part, sur l’impact des campagnes d’alphabétisation sur le comportement des populations par rapport à la problématique de l’eau.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207