MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952454914

L'aménagement de plaines inondables comme mesure de compensation de l'habitat du poisson : analyse des pratiques actuelles

2011· article· fr· W2952454914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.-F. Lafond

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryHumanitiesGeographyPolitical scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Afin d’assurer la disponibilite en qualite et en quantite des ressources ichtyologiques, des mesures de compensation visant le maintien et la creation d’habitats ont ete adoptees, afin de contrer les diverses pressions sur la ressource generees par les projets de developpement. La deterioration, la destruction et la perturbation d’habitats du poisson doivent maintenant etre compensees par des gains via l’amenagement d’habitats compensatoires. La plaine inondable, un habitat fournissant plusieurs services ecologiques a la faune ichtyologique, est un des habitats dont l’amenagement est en croissance. La creation de plaines inondables pour assurer la reconstruction et la protection d’ecosystemes et d’habitats pour les ressources ichtyologiques est-elle une mesure performante? A cet egard, une analyse de six projets repertories dans la banque de donnee du ministere Peches et Oceans Canada a ete menee. L’evaluation qui en decoule a ete effectuee sur la base de neuf sous-criteres regroupes sous trois grands criteres, soit le ratio reel d’habitat compensatoire : habitat deteriore, detruit ou perturbe, l’integrite physique des amenagements et l’utilisation de l’habitat par le poisson. Cinq des six projets repondent aux trois grands criteres de performance retenus dans cet essai. Un projet, faute d’information, ne satisfait pas les criteres de performance. A la suite de l’analyse comparative, 16 recommandations sont formulees. Elles portent sur quatre aspects, soit le guide d’amenagement des plaines inondables, le processus d’evaluation des amenagements compensatoires, la demarche de compensation en general, ainsi que sur la documentation relative a la demarche de compensation. Trois pistes de reflexion portant sur l’indice de pertinence de l’amenagement compensatoire, les partenariats avec les organismes a but non lucratif et le ministere Peches et Oceans Canada comme agent de transmission de l’information sont egalement developpees.

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)0.008
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207