MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057451156 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.1918

Aires protégées et lutte contre les bioinvasions : des objectifs antagonistes ? Le cas de Psidium cattleianum Sabine (Myrtaceae) autour du parc national de Ranomafana à Madagascar.

2008· article· fr· W2057451156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stéphanie M. Carrière, Eric Randrianasolo, Julie Hennenfent

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryHumanitiesGeographyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La question des bioinvasions est un sujet peu abordé et pris en compte par les politiques environnementales à Madagascar. Pourtant de nombreuses études montrent qu’au contraire, nombre d’écosystèmes et d’espèces sont menacés à moyen terme par les invasions. Nous nous proposons dans cette étude de mieux cerner les enjeux des bioinvasions à Madagascar à travers le cas de Psidium cattleianum. Son historique d’introduction dans la région du couloir Ranomafana-Andringitra (deux sites écologiquement contractés sur les Hautes-Terres malgaches) est relaté. Nous analyserons ensuite les dynamiques écologiques liés à l’invasion d’un site par cette espèce et en caractérisant ces effets sur la biodiversité végétale. Enfin, le rôle des animaux disperseurs de graines (homme, bovins et animaux sauvages du PN de Ranomafana) dans cette dynamique, a été analysé comme vecteur clé de l’invasion. Finalement, l’importance des usages de P. cattleianum par les populations locales a été montrée afin de discuter d’une possible lutte intégrée (lutte-valorisation économique) contre cette espèce hautement invasive.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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