Some Elements of Knowledge on the Coastal Floristic Formations of Martinique (French West Indies)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the middle of the 17th century to the end of the 18th century, the dynamics of land use in Martinique were accompanied by significant landscape transformation. The latter resulted from profound changes in the structural and functional organization of the vegetation. In the end, the history of this small tropical island is a permanent process of biocenonic changes. Despite the limited available data, it is likely that these were accompanied by disappearances of species. This specific diversity erosion mainly concerns the species in the last phases of ecosystemic evolution: particularly those of climax formations. In reality, the successive Antillean societies, formerly agrarian and today characterized by a strong presence of tertiary activities, led to a marked decline in pre-Columbian forests, which are supposed to be primitive. Many coastline forests were soon eliminated. Apart from the very marginal climatic forests protected by the foothills of the Pitons du Carbet and the Pelee Mountain, the secondary forest formations occupy small areas. Isolated in a herbaceous, shrubby and pre-forest vegetation, whose surface is being inexorably reduced due to human activities, they occupy zones that are unsuitable for agriculture, habitation and the various vital infrastructures: slopes, valley or gully bottoms, narrow ridges. The coastline, which was the main settlement location for the first Caribbean societies, is still home to most of the population and economic activities. It is characterized by species, physiognomies and phytocenoses typical of artificialized biotopes. Faced with an inexorable societal development, how can we preserve the floristic, ecosystemic and coastal landscape diversity specific to the patrimonial forest formations which have become natural monuments?
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".