Importance de la méthode de coupe sur la régénération de Combretaceae du Bassin arachidier sénégalais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance of the Harvest Method on the Regeneration of Combretaceae in the Senegalese Groundnut Basin. In order to develop recommendations for sustainable management of key fuel wood resources in the Senegalese Groundnut Basin, different diameters and heights of harvesting were tested on Guiera senegalensis J.F. Gmel and Combretum glutinosum Perr. The experimental design is adapted to the usual local harvesting period (May) and to the traditional tools (machete). Three factors were studied: species, height (ground level (RT), 20 and 50 cm) and diameter (0-10 and 10-20 cm). For each species, each treatment is represented by 15 individuals. Results from field observations and analysis of variance on the number of stems and growth variables (height and diameter) suggest a high survival rate (100%), a higher number of stems at 20 and 50 cm cutting height, a slow height growth of stems from ground level stumps (RT), and a larger diameter growth of G. senegalensis. For sustainable management of the studied Combreteceae species in the Groundnut Basin, 20 cm cutting height of all individuals would be appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".