MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013162080 · doi:10.7202/1068215ar

Intégration des considérations sociales en zone périphérique des aires protégées : le cas du parc national de Frontenac

2020· article· fr· W3013162080 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maxime Chénier, Dominic Dion, René Charest, Geneviève Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Naturaliste canadien · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considérant que la région périphérique des aires protégées joue un rôle important pour l’intégrité écologique de ces dernières et qu’elle est souvent hors du contrôle des gestionnaires, cette étude vise le développement d’un cadre méthodologique permettant de mieux orienter la mise en place des projets de zones périphériques, tout en favorisant la mobilisation des populations locales. La méthode s’appuie sur trois concepts centraux et englobants : le capital social, le niveau de patrimonialisation et le type de relation avec la nature. Celle-ci a été conçue de sorte à pouvoir être appliquée dans plusieurs contextes et régions, mais elle a été testée en périphérie du parc national de Frontenac. Les résultats amènent les gestionnaires de l’environnement à mieux comprendre les enjeux citoyens et leur relation avec le territoire, ce qui leur permettra d’orienter plus aisément les activités de concertation et de sensibilisation entourant le développement de projets de conservation de la nature. Le cadre méthodologique vise une mobilisation accrue des citoyens en faveur des projets, améliorant à la fois les chances de réussite et la durabilité des actions proposées.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.271
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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Naturaliste canadienSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207