MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779714426 · doi:10.3934/mbe.2018034

Analyzing the causes of alpine meadow degradation and the efficiency of restoration strategies through a mathematical modelling exercise

2018· article· en· W2779714426 on OpenAlexaff
Hanwu Liu, Lin Wang, Fengqin Zhang, Qiuying Li, Huakun Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Biosciences & Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockEcosystemEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)ForagePopulationLand degradationClimate changeRestoration ecologyEcologyAgroforestryBiologyLand use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an important ecosystem, alpine meadow in China has been degraded severely over the past few decades. In order to restore degraded alpine meadows efficiently, the underlying causes of alpine meadow degradation should be identified and the efficiency of restoration strategies should be evaluated. For this purpose, a mathematical modeling exercise is carried out in this paper. Our mathematical analysis shows that the increasing of raptor mortality and the decreasing of livestock mortality (or the increasing of the rate at which livestock increases by consuming forage grass) are the major causes of alpine meadow degradation. We find that controlling the amount of livestock according to the grass yield or ecological migration, together with protecting raptor, is an effective strategy to restore degraded alpine meadows; while meliorating vegetation and controlling rodent population with rodenticide are conducive to restoring degraded alpine meadows. Our analysis also suggests that providing supplementary food to livestock and building greenhouse shelters to protect livestock in winter may contribute to alpine meadow degradation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Biosciences & EngineeringSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207