MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111287337

Paysages Humanisés : Quels enjeux de biodiversité au sein de ces territoires ?

2012· preprint· fr· W3111287337 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Fund

Bibliographic record

VenueINRIA a CCSD electronic archive server · 2012
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Quebec, le Ministere du Developpement Durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs, a cree et inscrit en 2002 dans la loi sur la conservation du patrimoine naturel, un nouveau type d'aire protegee. Nomme paysage humanise, ce statut a pour but la protection de la biodiversite sur les territoires habites pour lesquels les ressources sont exploitees durablement. Une nouvelle approche de conservation voit le jour conciliant maintien des activites humaines, mise en valeur du territoire, engagement des communautes et protection de la biodiversite. Le paysage humanise est donc un outil innovateur qui est en contraste avec la vision conversationniste qui a longtemps etait le fer de lance dans l'etablissement d'aires protegees strictes au Quebec. Cette presente etude vise a determiner les enjeux au sein des territoires ruraux et a mener une reflexion sur la mise en application et la gestion future de l'agriculture dans ce type d'aires. Ces recherches ont permis, au final, d'etablir un certain nombre de recommandations a Nature Quebec pour son implication future dans la mise en oeuvre du paysage humanise, comme la participation a la creation d'une collaboration interministerielle, d'un guide d'aide a la realisation d'un paysage humanise disponible pour les communautes etc...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINRIA a CCSD electronic archive serverSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207