MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907510172 · doi:10.1505/146554818825240700

Influence of rural households' livelihood capital on income derived from participation in the Forest Carbon Sequestration Project: a case from the Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces of China

2018· article· en· W2907510172 on OpenAlexaff
Lingling Qiu, Fan Yang, Krishna P. Paudel, Mansoor Ahmed Koondhar, Weizhong Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Forestry Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodChinaCarbon sequestrationCapital (architecture)Natural resource economicsSocial capitalBusinessGeographyAgricultural economicsAgroforestryForestrySocioeconomicsEconomicsEconomic growthEcologyPolitical scienceAgricultureEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

© 2018 BioOne. All rights reserved. We analyze survey data collected from interview of 367 randomly selected rural households from the Sichuan and Yunnan provinces of China to assess the influence of rural households' livelihood capital (physical, financial, human, natural, and social capital) on their income from participation in the forest carbon sequestration project. The project is implemented under the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity standards. Results show that, with regional differences controlled, natural capital and physical capital have a positive and statistically significant influence, whereas the human capital, financial capital, and social capital of rural households have a negative and statistically significant influence on their income from participation in the project.

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)0.002
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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Forestry ReviewSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207