MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991833444 · doi:10.24841/fa.v28i1.466

REPIQUETES Y RIESGO EN EL CULTIVO DE ARROZ EN LA LLANURA INUNDABLE DEL RÍO AMAZONAS CERCA DE IQUITOS, PERÚ

2019· article· es· W2991833444 on OpenAlexaff
Geneva List, Oliver T. Coomes

Bibliographic record

VenueFolia Amazónica · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Las llanuras inundables del río Amazonas poseen un gran potencial para la agricultura, pero no están exentas de riesgos para los agricultores que cultivan en esas tierras fértiles muy propensas a inundaciones. Estas inundaciones repentinas, que ocurren a medida que el nivel del río disminuye entre mayo y noviembre, son conocidas como «repiquetes» y representan una amenaza seria para los cultivos en llanuras inundables, especialmente para el arroz comercial. En este artículo se analiza el registro diario de los niveles de agua del río Amazonas en Iquitos de los últimos 45 años (entre 1968 y 2012), para determinar la frecuencia y magnitud de los repiquetes y su impacto en la temporada de crecimiento del cultivo. Las entrevistas y los estudios de campo realizados en cuatro comunidades ribereñas, cerca del archipiélago Muyuy, revelan el impacto de los repiquetes y otros riesgos en la producción de arroz, así como la disposición de los agricultores al pago por los instrumentos apropiados para disminuir el riesgo de las inundaciones. Nuestros hallazgos apuntan a un seguro basado en índices climáticos, como una nueva estrategia para reducir el riesgo y promover el desarrollo agrícola en las llanuras inundables del Amazonas.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.268 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFolia AmazónicaSame topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207