MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521389643 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.17564

Étude préliminaire de la flore et de la biomasse ligneuse des clairières en haute altitude du Parc National de Kahuzi-Biega, République démocratique du Congo

2016· article· fr· W2521389643 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gérard Imani, Louis Zapfack, Prince Baraka, Isaac Ahana Mungu

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les caractéristiques dynamiques et structurelles des clairières de la partie haute altitude (2000 à 2300 m) du Parc National de Kahuzi Biega (PNKB) ont été analysées sur une durée de 15 ans et sur base des informations fournies par des services de conservation. L’objectif étant de caractériser la diversité floristique, la structure des clairières et d’estimer la quantité de la biomasse/carbone. Les individus ligneux de Dbh≥ 5 cm étaient comptés et leur hauteur prise par un laser dans les relevés polyvalents. Les indices de diversité, de valeurs d’importance ainsi que de similarité ont permis de caractériser la végétation et par les équations allométriques, on a déterminé la biomasse. L’analyse Anova et le test de TukeyHDS ont été utilisés pour voir la variation de la diversité et la biomasse entre les clairières. Les clairières de la partie haute altitude du Parc National de Kahuzi Biega sont caractérisées par des espèces comme Neoboutonia macrocalyx, Mimulopsis arborescens et Dombeya goetzenii. La biomasse/carbone varie significativement le long de la chronoséquence en fonction des classes d’âge.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207