MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737156393 · doi:10.5539/jps.v6n2p77

Effects of Piliostigma reticulatum on the Vegetation Dynamic in Sudanian Zone of Burkina Faso

2017· article· en· W2737156393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barthélémy Yélémou, Abdoulaye Tyano, Babou André Bationo, Bassiaka Ouattara, Jonas Koala, Jeanne Millogo Rasolodimby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerbaceous plantCanopyShrubVegetation (pathology)QuadratSpecies diversityGrasslandGeographyBiomass (ecology)ForestryBiologyAgroforestryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at identifying the effect of P. reticulatum on the vegetation regeneration dynamic in Sudanian fallows of Burkina Faso. Two fallows of about twenty years old have been considered. The point quadrat method was used for herbaceous inventory. Aboveground biomass has been estimated. Moreover, effect of P. reticulatum on the regeneration of others woody species has been studied under, at the limit and out of the shrub canopy. In north Sudanian zone, inventory recorded 39 herbaceous species of which 23 species under the canopy and 16 in open grassland, distributed in 12 families and 22 genera. In south Sudanian zone, species diversity is 41 species from which 23 under the canopy and 18 out of, spread in 16 families and 26 genera. Species higher than 80 cm have been observed only under P. reticulatum canopy in south and north Sudanian zone. In addition, no species of striga met in open sunlight has been observed under the shrub canopy. East and West directions recorded the important proportions of species with individuals belonging to the stratum superior to 100 cm (3.13 and 4.81 % in north direction, 1.47 and 1.73% in south directions).

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)0.001
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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207