MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988148216 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.8059

L’implantation des aires protégées au vietnam : quels impacts pour les populations locales ? Une étude de cas dans la province de Lâm Đồng

2009· article· fr· W1988148216 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Steve Déry, Martin Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMinistère des TransportsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGeographyArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir des années 1960, le Vietnam, comme d’autres pays en Asie du Sud-Est, a amorcé la mise en place d’un réseau d’aires protégées, l’objectif étant d’assurer la conservation des écosystèmes forestiers et certains sites d’une grande valeur environnementale, historique ou culturelle. Toutefois, les forêts d’Asie du Sud-Est restent les plus densément habitées de la planète. La mise en place de parcs nationaux ou de réserves naturelles contribue à bouleverser le rapport au territoire des populations affectées : avec les nouvelles règles, les populations locales doivent ajuster leur mode de vie, le plus souvent en le transformant complètement. L’hypothèse qui constitue la ligne directrice de cet article s’articule comme suit : en Asie du Sud-Est, et particulièrement au Vietnam, la mise en place d’aires protégées contribue à marginaliser les populations qui habitent près ou sur le territoire où se situe l’aire protégée. Le parc national Bi Ðoup-Núi Bà, province de Lâm Đồng au Vietnam, sert d’étude de cas.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207