MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901112525 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v20i4.344

Designing a Meta-Synthesis Model of Affecting Drivers of Land Use Changes by Systematic Review of Previous Studies

2018· article· en· W2901112525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Mohammadreza Akbari, Mohammad Ghorbani, Michael R. Reed, Naser Shahnoushi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusLand useLand use, land-use change and forestryClimate changeSystematic reviewGeographyEnvironmental resource managementPopulationAgricultureEnvironmental planningRegional scienceEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEcologySociologyDemographyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of this study is to identify the most important factors affecting land use change based on previous literature. The method used is qualitative and a type of meta-study known as meta-synthesis. We review the purpose of each study, data collection methods and research design/questions for this task. We perform a systematic search based on keywords used in articles on land use change and transformation of land in the following databases: Scopus, Springer, and Science Direct for articles from 1976 to 2015. After reviewing 63 articles out of 286 articles, we identified 5 dimensions and 28 factors as the most important indicators of land use change in various domestic and foreign studies. The results of this study show that the most important dimensions of land use change are economic, demographic and climate. The most important drivers are urban population, average rainfall, and changes in the price of agricultural land.

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)0.223
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.389
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2230.389
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.031
Bibliometrics0.0360.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.180 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207