MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891255093 · doi:10.7202/1050996ar

Gestion intégrée du roseau commun à la réserve naturelle du Marais-Léon-Provancher (Neuville, Québec)

2018· article· fr· W2891255093 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
François Messier, Réhaume Courtois

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Naturaliste canadien · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhragmitesHumanitiesForestryGeographyArtBiologyEcologyWetland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le roseau commun exotique (Phragmites australis [Cav.] Trin. ex Steud. subsp. australis) s’est propagé graduellement au cours des 20 dernières années dans la réserve naturelle du Marais-Léon-Provancher, un site de 125 ha avec 19 ha de marais d’eau douce. Des inventaires réalisés de 2013 à 2015 ont permis d’identifier 41 clones de roseau sur le territoire du marais. Compte tenu des conditions du milieu et de l’accessibilité au site, 5 méthodes ont été privilégiées pour lutter contre le roseau : l’arrachage manuel des rhizomes, la fauche des tiges, le bâchage, l’excavation mécanique avec ensemencement et l’implantation d’une compétition végétale. La superficie totale occupée par les clones de roseau à la suite des interventions a diminué de 19 %, passant de 7579 m2 en 2013 à 6132 m2 en 2017. L’excavation mécanique avec ensemencement, l’arrachage manuel et le bâchage ont engendré de fortes diminutions des superficies occupées par le roseau (baisses respectives de 99 %, 88 % et 47 %), tandis que la fauche et la compétition végétale ont eu un effet plus faible (diminution d’au plus 28 %).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Naturaliste canadienSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207