MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187743476 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v7n4p33

Modelling Spatial Distribution of the Carob Tree (Ceratonia siliqua L.) in Azilal Province, Morocco

2015· article· en· W2187743476 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saïd Lahssini, Said Hajib, Hicham Lahlaoi, Hicham Mharzi Alaoui, Abdellatif Khattabi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeratonia siliquaDistribution (mathematics)GeographyAgroforestryTree (set theory)ForestrySpecies distributionEcologyEnvironmental scienceHabitatMathematicsBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factors determining forest species distribution include, in addition to external factors such as human interference and environmental management strategies, also soil and hydrological characteristics and climate conditions in any given areas. Modelling<strong> </strong>distribution has practical application in forest conservation and management, and help decision makers to develop strategies aimed at forest restoration, development of mountainous areas and the continuous and sustainable provision of forest-related services. Species distribution modelling (SDM) can be used for predicting species distribution based on tree presence records and on a number of environmental predictors. In this study we used MaxEnt for niche modelling in predicting carob (<em>Ceratonia siliqua </em>L.) trees spatial distribution in the Province of Azilal in Morocco. The results obtained show that a large area of the mountain regions is suitable for the expansion of <em>Ceratonia siliqua</em> stands. These findings will help decision makers in forest planning to better identify suitable sites for carob tree plantations and assess the potential of the exiting populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207