MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991620161 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.11549

Risque palustre : appréhender la vulnérabilité des individus à l'échelle locale (Sud du Bénin)

2012· article· fr· W1991620161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charlotte Pierrat

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyLocale (computer software)ForestryPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le paludisme représente aujourd’hui l’une des pandémies les plus meurtrières des pays du Sud, la majorité de la population à risque se trouvant en Afrique sub-saharienne. C’est une maladie à vecteurs en effet étroitement liée au climat chaud et humide, dont la variabilité spatio-temporelle de la transmission observée à l’échelle très fine d’un village rural ne parvient pas à être totalement expliquée par les modèles de prédiction basés principalement sur le climat. Les lacunes des principaux modèles basés sur des connaissances climatiques et entomologiques à macro-échelle sont dues à la difficulté de récolter des variables climatiques fines et d’autres variables d’ordre socio-économique déterminant la vulnérabilité des populations, jusqu’à présent peu prise en compte dans la prédiction du risque palustre. La confrontation au terrain de Tori Bossito, commune rurale du sud du Bénin, a permis d’analyser les facteurs socio-éco-environnementaux du paludisme à l’échelle locale. Les résultats de cette étude confirment la grande hétérogénéité spatiale de la transmission à très fine échelle, et montrent qu’elle est liée à des facteurs de vulnérabilité identifiés à l’échelle du foyer.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207