Impact des activités touristiques en forêt de Fontainebleau : de la dégradation à la restauration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La forêt de Fontainebleau connait depuis le XIXe siècle une fréquentation touristique importante grâce à sa proximité avec la capitale et à sa diversité paysagère qui a attiré autant les peintres de Barbizon que les parisiens avides de plein air. Cette fréquentation de la forêt a été facilitée par l’arrivée du train à Avon dès 1849. Fréquentation touristique qui s’accroit considérablement dès le début du XXème siècle car de plus en plus de visiteurs viennent consommer de l’espace forestier. Mais, une telle fréquentation, dans un milieu si fragile, entraine une érosion intense en certains lieux qui deviennent dangereux et perdent leurs caractéristiques paysagères du XIXème siècle, comme c’est le cas de la platière d’Apremont. Quels sont les effets de cette fréquentation touristique ? Comment restaurer et sauvegarder ces milieux et ces paysages qui ont fait la réputation de cette forêt ?
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".