MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045482626 · doi:10.1080/01435698.2000.9753020

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF WOODLAND USE AND CHANGE IN ZIMBABWE

2000· article· en· W2045482626 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Campbell, Peter J. Frost, Allison Goebel, Wavell Standa-Gunda, Billy B. Mukamuri, Michele M. Veeman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Tree Crops Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandLivelihoodContext (archaeology)Conceptual modelEnvironmental planningConceptual frameworkGeographyEnvironmental resource managementSystem dynamicsNatural resource economicsBusinessEcologyEconomicsSociologyAgricultureComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we use a conceptual box-and-arrow model for understanding woodland use in Zimbabwe in the context of the complex ecological-social-economic system of which it is part. Central themes within our model are: the policy framework; local institutions; land pressures; rural-urban relationships; the rise in tourism; increasing commercialisation of woodland products; drought; AIDS; and the status of the resource itself. We suggest that too little attention has been paid to the impacts of policy on woodland use and commercialisation, and that woodland use is seldom seen in the wider context of the entire household livelihood system. Conceptual models represent a tool for understanding the connections between the components of complex systems, but they need to be followed by more detailed simulation modelling, to understand both the dynamics of these systems and the possible outcomes of various interventions in them.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Tree Crops JournalSame topicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issuesFrench-language works237,207