MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Research Priorities for Neotropical Dry Forests<sup>1</sup>

2005· article· en· W3199477407 on OpenAlexaff
Arturo Sánchez‐Azofeifa, Maurício Quesada, Jon Paul Rodrı́guez, Jafet M. Nassar, Kathryn E. Stoner, Alicia Melgoza‐Castillo, Theresa Garvin, Eglée L. Zent, Julio Calvo‐Alvarado, Margaret Kalácska, Laurie Fajardo, John A. Gamon, Pablo Cuevas‐Reyes

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotropica · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forestsNexus (standard)GeographyCitizen scienceTemperate rainforestTropical forestEnvironmental resource managementEcologyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceForestryEcosystemBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Our understanding of the human and biophysical dimensions of tropical dry forest change and its cumulative effects is still in the early stages of academic discovery. The papers in this special section on Neotropical dry forests cover a wide range of sites and problems ranging from the use of multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing platforms to the impact of hurricanes on tropical dry forest regeneration. Here, we present to the scientific community the results of a workshop on which research priorities for tropical dry forests were discussed. This discussion focuses on the need to develop linkages between remote sensing, ecological, and social science research. The incorporation of social sciences into ecological research could contribute dramatically to our understandings of tropical dry forests by providing important contextual information to ecologists, and by helping to develop an important science–policy–public nexus on which environmental management can succeed.

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)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations314
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotropicaSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207