MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119959205 · doi:10.1111/soin.12097

Urbanization and Land‐Use Change: A Human Ecology of Deforestation Across the United States, 2001–2006

2015· article· en· W2119959205 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Thomas Clement, Guangqing Chi, Hung Chak Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Inquiry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)UrbanizationLand coverGeographyLocalityEcologyHuman ecologyLand useCover (algebra)Land use, land-use change and forestryNatural (archaeology)Economic geographyForest coverEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing from human ecology, the present study sheds light on the ways in which urbanization drives changes in forest cover at the local level across the continental United States. Using county‐level data from the National Land Cover Database and other US governmental sources, the area of forest cover lost in the construction of the built environment between 2001 and 2006 is regressed on the size, density, and social organization of a locality. Controlling for several other factors, estimates from spatial regression models with two‐way fixed effects show that increasing density slowed down deforestation, while variables representing size and social organization had the opposite effect. Based on these results, urbanization is framed as a multidimensional human ecological process with countervailing impacts on the natural environment.

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)0.001
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.459
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.129 · 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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociological InquirySame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207