Terminologie relative à la conservation de la biodiversité in situ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis quelques années, nous constatons des différences de signification ainsi qu’une certaine ambiguïté sémantique concernant divers termes liés au domaine de la conservation de la biodiversité in situ . Le sens de ces termes varie en fonction du domaine d’activité, du type d’organisation, voire des valeurs personnelles et culturelles. Force est de constater qu’au final, il en résulte parfois une incompréhension qui peut éventuellement compromettre l’atteinte des objectifs poursuivis. À partir d’une revue de littérature sur des termes tels que conservation , préservation , protection , etc., un groupe de spécialistes de divers horizons a élaboré un lexique composé de définitions relatives à la conservation in situ qui reflètent l’état de l’art dans le domaine. Ce lexique devrait permettre de recadrer et de préciser certains termes usuels et d’en arriver à un sens commun afin de mieux répondre aux impératifs de la conservation de la biodiversité.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".