MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEFORESTATION IN NORTHEAST THAILAND, 1975-91: RESULTS OF A GENERAL STATISTICAL MODEL

2005· article· en· W2049472897 on OpenAlexaff
Gadsaraporn Wannitikul

Bibliographic record

VenueSingapore Journal of Tropical Geography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFord Foundation
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)AgricultureGeographyPopulationPer capita incomeAgricultural economicsPer capitaPopulation densitySocioeconomicsLoggingForestryEconomicsDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a general statistical model, this study attempts to characterise the trend of deforestation in the northeast region (Isan) of Thailand between 1975 and 1991, a period when the kingdom had sustained high rates of economic growth and steady increases in population. Using data obtained directly from government bodies on the 17 provinces comprising this heavily deforested region, the study examines the correlations between forest area and a set of six variables: population density, agricultural area, real per capita income, accumulated irrigated area, agricultural credit levels, and distance from Bangkok, the national political and economic centre. It also considers the effect of the two logging bans instituted in 1979 and since 1989. The study found a negative correlation between forest area and population density in particular, followed in ranking by agricultural credit, per capita income, the logging bans and distance from Bangkok. Viewed together with more recent data showing that rates of deforestation in the kingdom as a whole have slowed and appear to be stabilising, these results also suggest the beginnings in the 1990s of a forest transition – from an industrial to a post-industrial stage in forest utilisation – in Thailand.

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)0.001
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSingapore Journal of Tropical GeographySame topicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical StudiesFrench-language works237,207