Appropriation des ressources naturelles dans une forêt andine équatorienne : vers la gestion patrimoniale des ressources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’écosystème des forêts andines, dont la biodiversité est l’une des plus élevée au monde, a supporté plusieurs civilisations humaines au cours de l'histoire. Le développement de ces civilisations a produit divers impacts sur son paysage et l'évolution de sa biodiversité. Présentement, les modèles de gestion de ces forêts ne prennent pas en compte l'héritage culturel ni la réalité socioéconomique de ses usagers. Cette étude cherche justement à décrire les stratégies d'appropriation et les représentations que les usagers d’une communauté andine équatorienne se font de leurs ressources naturelles. La transformation des forêts est le principal soutien de "l'économie" de subsistance de ces gens. La compréhension de cette dynamique nous amènera à proposer des pistes pour la mise en œuvre d’une gestion patrimoniale des forêts andines, basées sur les principes théoriques de l’économie écologique et de l’institutionnalisme.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".