MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2104968729 · doi:10.5751/es-01213-100106

Can Logging in Equatorial Africa Affect Adjacent Parks?

2005· article· en· W2104968729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Somnath Baidya Roy, Peter D. Walsh, Jeremy W. Lichstein

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoggingAffect (linguistics)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsForestryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tropical deforestation can cause fundamental regional-scale shifts in vegetation structure and diversity.This is particularly true in Africa.Although national parks are being established to protect areas from deforestation and to conserve biodiversity, these parks are not immune to disturbances outside their boundaries.We used regional-scale atmospheric simulation experiments to investigate how deforestation in timber concessions might affect precipitation inside adjacent, undisturbed national parks in the equatorial African countries of Gabon and the Republic of Congo.The experiments revealed a complex response.Some parks showed rainfall reduced as much as 15%, while others showed slight increases.Rainfall inside parks was particularly sensitive to upwind deforestation along the path of airborne moisture traveling inland from the ocean.A variety of shortcomings in the current modeling procedures limit the ability to extrapolate from experiments such as ours to provide spatially explicit, long-term forecasts of climate.We describe what advances in modeling are needed to produce regional-scale predictions that are robust enough to be useful to managers and policy makers.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
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 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and Society→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→