Biodiversité et pertinence des pratiques locales dans la réserve de biosphère des Cévennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Espace réglementé et habité, le Parc national des Cévennes tente de concilier des enjeux environnementaux et socio-économiques. Il doit composer avec l’ensemble des acteurs du territoire, détenteurs de savoirs vernaculaires, techniques et scientifiques. Cet apprentissage de la cogestion invite au dialogue, à la négociation, voire à la confrontation autour des pratiques locales. Depuis la création du Parc en 1970, l’approche scientifique des savoirs naturalistes locaux a accompagné l’évolution des problématiques sociales et écologiques. Les programmes de recherche ou de conservation apportent de précieux éclairages sur la place qu’occupent les représentations des acteurs locaux dans le cadre des politiques environnementales. Les savoirs et les savoir-faire vernaculaires sont-ils pertinents du point de vue de la préservation de la biodiversité ?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".