MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987401701 · doi:10.1007/s11284-006-0048-2

Land use change in Asia and the ecological consequences

2006· article· en· W1987401701 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)GeographyBiodiversityContext (archaeology)Climate changeMegacityTropical AsiaAgricultureLand use, land-use change and forestryLand useTropicsEcologyEnvironmental protectionAgroforestryNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Viewed within a historical context, Asia has experienced dramatic land transformations, and currently more than 50% of Asian land area is under agriculture. The consequences of this transformation are manifold. Southeast Asia has the highest deforestation rate of any major tropical region. Many of the world's large rivers and lakes in Asia have been heavily degraded. About 11 of 19 world megacities with more than 10 million inhabitants are in Asia. These land use activities have resulted in substantial negative ecological consequences, including increased anthropogenic CO 2 emissions, deteriorated air and water quality, alteration of regional climate, an increase of disease and a loss of biodiversity. Although land use occurs at the local level, it has the potential to cause ecological impact across local, regional and global scales. Reducing the negative environmental impacts of land use change while maintaining economic viability and social acceptability is an major challenge for most developing countries in Asia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.178 · 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