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 OpenAlex
Steve Déry, Martin Tremblay

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 · 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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