MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020581001 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v2n3p96

Livelihood, Dependence on Forest and Its Degradation: Evidence from Meghalaya

2012· article· en· W2020581001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Utpal Kumar De

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodPovertyEnvironmental degradationPopulationGeographyLoggingForest degradationPopulation growthAgroforestryResource (disambiguation)Natural resourceForest coverSocioeconomicsForestryLand degradationEcologyAgricultureEconomic growthEnvironmental scienceEconomicsBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The linkages between population growth, pattern of livelihood and dependence as well as degradation of forests have long been the subject of debate and concern. It is thus important to investigate to what extent does the growth of population, poverty and livelihood affect the neighbouring forest resources or how are they affected by the degradation of forests. Various assessments have assigned the major responsibility in the loss of forest cover at various places either to population growth or logging, or other commercial resource extraction, including the spread of cattle ranches. The objective of this paper is to unfold the nature of dependence on forest and factors affecting degradation of forest in Meghalaya in an interlinking fashion. The analysis reveals that family size, incidence of poverty, cultivation practice, remoteness of the area and consumption or livelihood pattern have important impact on the extraction of forest resources. Education helps in conservation and sustainable use of the forest resources. Broadly, there is important inter-linkage between population growth, incidence of poverty and degradation of forest in the region.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207