Bibliographic record
Abstract
The savanna-forest boundary thus appears very clearly, especially on vertical air photographs, and may in consequence be accurately mapped and studied in relation to other features in a number of locations. Such study has the full support of the Special Commission on the Humid Tropics of the International Geographical Union, which is especially concerned with understanding, defining, delimiting, and subdividing the humid tropical environment, and which regards the savanna-forest boundary as one of its most interesting and significant problems. A symposium on the ecology of the boundary was held under its auspices in Venezuela in May 964, and a major symposium to discuss the geography of the humid tropics is planned for I968. Nowhere is the boundary more clearly defined than in Western Nigeria, where the authors already have considerable field experience and where the new infra-red vertical air photographs, taken by Canadian Aero Services during the 1961-2 and 1962-3 dry seasons, provide prints of superb quality especially suitable for the study of vegetation communities in considerable detail.3 The origin of the boundary here, as elsewhere, is a matter of considerable ecological debate. Some authorities stress the importance of burning and cultivation as dominating biotic influences.4 Others assign more importance to climatic controls, such as rainfall, dry season length, and relative humidity, often with an emphasis on the importance of climatic change. Edaphic factors, related to soils, water table levels, and drainage, are also emphasized by some authors.5 More recent work has related major features of the floristic com
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".