MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105021722 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v3n1p16

Use of Graph Model for the Resolution of Conflicts between Fishers of the Amazonian Floodplain Lakes

2012· article· en· W2105021722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabíola Aquino do Nascimento, Carlos Edwar de Carvalho Freitas

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaFinanciadora de Estudos e ProjetosPetrobrasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsFloodplainFishingSubsistence agricultureConflict resolutionGeographyAmazonianAgency (philosophy)FisheryAmazon rainforestEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningOperations researchEcologyAgricultureEnvironmental scienceMathematicsSociologySocial scienceBiologyArchaeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the GMCR II (Model of the Graphs for Conflict Resolution) as a tool for the identification of fishing management strategies that could be possible solutions for fishing conflicts in the floodplain lakes of the Central Amazon. The procedures of this software are based on the Graph Theory, a mathematical approach derived from the Game Theory. In our modeling, the players were IBAMA (environmental agency in Brazil), commercial fishers and subsistence fishers. The GMCR II demonstrated that when IBAMA adopts the strategy of restriction of some fishing gear in floodplain lakes, the resolution of the conflict between fishers is more likely to happen. We also conclude that the use of a mathematical approach, by the employment of the GMCR II, would be an important tool for approaching conflict situations but that its use needs to be followed by other methodologies, mainly participative programs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

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 studies0.0000.002
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207