MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153783919 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.10005

Agriculture urbaine et stratégies de survie des ménages pauvres dans le complexe spatial du district d’Abidjan

2010· article· fr· W2153783919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abraham Olahan

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le processus d’urbanisation en Côte d’Ivoire a généré, à la fois, une forte migration rurale de l'intérieur des terres et celle des pays limitrophes. Il a eu pour corollaire une expansion spatiale urbaine débridée marquée par des espaces non constructibles du fait de leur topographie non propice du point de vue urbanistique.Par ailleurs, au niveau démographique, avec un taux d’accroissement moyen annuel de 3,7 % contre 3,3 % national, la ville d’Abidjan n’échappe pas à l’étalement spatial ponctué de contrastes dans le mode d’occupation du sol. Autant des domaines publics que des domaines lotis (en attendant leur mise en valeur) sont occupés par des activités agricoles dans l’espace urbain au regard de la Charte d’Aalborg.L’article vise à mettre en exergue l’existence de deux types d’agriculture urbaine : celui de type nourricier et celui de type décoratif (ornemental) d’une part. Montrer, d’autre part, les acteurs qui y sont impliqués, leurs origines et les stratégies adoptées pour survivre dans une grande métropole comme Abidjan où le coût de la vie est élevé en regard de la vie quotidienne marquée par le chômage, le sous-emploi et la misère.

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)0.001
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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207