MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987494719 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.3883

Le fleuve Sénégal et les barrages de l’OMVS :quels enseignements pour la mise en œuvre du NEPAD ?

2003· article· fr· W1987494719 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHydropower, Displacement, Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsGDG Environnement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeographyPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le fleuve Sénégal fait l’objet depuis la fin des années 1970 d’un vaste programme d’aménagements hydro-agricoles et hydroélectriques mis en œuvre par l’Organisation pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Sénégal. Ces grands barrages mis en service au milieu des années 1980, ont aujourd’hui des impacts environnementaux, socio-économiques et culturels majeurs tant sur le milieu biophysique que celui humain. L’option de l’agriculture irriguée prise par les décideurs politiques et les planificateurs semble être en déphasage avec les techniques traditionnelles (système de décrue/système pluvial) utilisées par les populations locales. Face aux perspectives de mise en œuvre du NEPAD1, tirer les leçons du programme intégrateur de l’OMVS pourrait être utile aux projets d’aménagement des autres cours d’eau à l’échelle du continent africain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.319 · 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