The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European landscape reflects many centuries of dynamic interaction between people and their natural environments. Indeed, much of the current biological and aesthetic value of the wide variety of "cultural" landscapes has been created and is now maintained by long-established farming systems. Such traditional systems (many of which are pastoral based) are generally well integrated with the environment and involve management practices that do not over-exploit the natural carrying capacity of the land. However, the rapid modernisation of agriculture that occurred after the 1939-1945 war resulted in an intensification of many European farming systems and has had severe negative effects on the environment. This modernisation initially occurred primarily in northwest Europe fuelled by the European Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but with the expansion of the EU it is continuing and is certain to increase in southern, central, and eastern Europe. The response of the EU to this fundamental imbalance between farming and the environment has included the introduction of compulsory regulations to ensure the implementation of minimum environmental standards in the production processes and the promotion of agri-environment programmes to encourage farmers to undertake positive environmental management on their farmland. The ongoing reforms of the CAP will undoubtedly place greater emphasis on agri-environment programmes and increasingly on the concept of "integrated rural development." There is, however, still a pressing need for detailed information to justify to the EU and world markets why certain types of farming system should be central to future European rural development policies.Key words: biodiversity, wildlife value, farming systems, European policy, agri-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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".