MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744198532 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v9n3p30

Forestation in Puerto Rico, 1970s to Present

2017· article· en· W2744198532 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fei Yuan, José Javier López, Sabrina Arnold, Anna Livia Brand, J. I. Klein, M. Schmidt, Erin Moseman, Madeline Michels-Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfforestationGeographyForest coverNatural resourcePaceGovernment (linguistics)Socioeconomic statusEnvironmental protectionForestryEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to monitor the trend of forestland changes, as forests are vital sources and sinks of carbon on the earth. One of the most densely populated jurisdictions of the United States, Puerto Rico, has experienced significant transformations in the past century. This study examines forestation in the main island of Puerto Rico during the past four decades using feature extraction and change detection analysis in multitemporal Landsat satellite imagery. The results of the study show that forest cover in Puerto Rico had almost tripled from 15.7% to 45.7% between 1972 and 2014. Moreover, the forestation trend and pace in abandoned coffee plantations and pastures continued after 1990, driven by continuous socioeconomic transformation. Natural forestation and conservation efforts from the government and nongovernment organizations have also contributed to the forest growth on the island. The information gained and lessons learned during the process may be applied to other densely populated tropical insular territories.

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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207