MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917160357 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.21655

Improving urban metabolism through agriculture : an approach to ecosystem services qualitative assessment in Rome

2018· article· fr· W2917160357 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicolas Cartiaux, Giampiero Mazzocchi, Davide Marino

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGeographyEcosystem servicesForestryHumanitiesArtEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente le cas de l'agriculture péri-et urbaine dans le contexte de la municipalité de Rome soulignant, en particulier, sa contribution aux services écosystémiques fournis à la population urbaine. Ces différents cas d'agriculture participent à la résilience de la ville marquant et influençant le fonctionnement du paysage agricole de la ville. Parmi les différents outils mis en place par la municipalité, nous avons pris en considération les prêts accordés aux jeunes agriculteurs du projet « terre publiques » lancé en 2013 afin de participer au développement de fermes multifonctionnelles visant à la fois à la protection et à la restauration du système agricole. Malgré la demande et volonté d'accès aux terres publiques, aucun réelle politique paysagère ou cadre de planification ont été développées faisant courir le risque de voir ces différentes initiatives sporadiques. Les résultats ont montré que ces fermes multifonctionnelles fournissent un large panel de bénéfices influençant et régénérant le voisinage et que les activités agricoles maintiennent la fonction de sol et fournissent des services écosystémiques essentiels pour la société.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueVertigOSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207