MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405659990 · doi:10.4236/gep.2016.45016

A Proposed Geoheritage Inventory System: Case Study of Isalo National Park, Madagascar

2016· article· en· W2405659990 on OpenAlexaff
Hasina Nirina Randrianaly, Andrea Di Cencio, Aroniaina Rajaonarivo, Tsilavo Raharimahefa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeotourism and Geoheritage Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeoparkContext (archaeology)National parkNatural heritageTourismGeographyEnvironmental resource managementNatural parkHistorical geologyNatural resourceWorld heritageGeotourismSustainabilityEnvironmental protectionNature ConservationNatural (archaeology)Cultural heritageArchaeologyEnvironmental planningBiogeosciencesEarth scienceGeologyEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geological heritage inventory procedures and templates have been principally emerged from European countries. Each of these countries has developed its proper method of inventory based on its natural heritage, recognized on local and/or regional scales. Natural sites were mainly identified and characterized in a particular geological context, which is usually very unique, valuable and impressive; resulting in the protection of the sites. Madagascar is known internationally as a beautifully landscaped island, but the impressive sites were not cataloged. We carried out a series of field inventory of potential geological sites within the Isalo National Park in southern Madagascar. We invented several inventory sheets in order to record the most detailed information about the sites identified within the park. This is to aid in organizing the park and to establish a sustainable base for the creation of a geopark, and also they help us to build a database for geosites and their classifications. This article suggests a prototype model for inventorying intangible geosites, paleosites and geomorphosites. Our inventory sheets help to identify and to promote geological importance of any sites, not only for academia but also for other sectors such as tourism and conservation.

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)0.002
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geoscience and Environment ProtectionSame topicGeotourism and Geoheritage ConservationFrench-language works237,207