MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overview of approaches and methods

2002· book-chapter· en· W34084874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kuswata Kartawinata, Douglas Sheil, Eva Wollenberg, Patrice Levang, Plínio Sist

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachSustainabilityLoggingEnvironmental resource managementAdaptive managementForest managementProduct (mathematics)Dependency (UML)Conceptual frameworkEnvironmental planningComputer scienceManagement scienceGeographyEngineeringEnvironmental scienceForestryEcologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CIFOR-ITTO project's general objective is to achieve long-term forest management for multiple uses, integrating social and silvicultural objectives in Malinau, Kalimantan, Indonesia. To achieve this objective there are complicated issues to be dealt with and requires integrated research that combined biological and socioeconomics aspects. The underlying issue is: what are the appropriate research methods and conceptual approaches to guide sustainability for a large forest landscape, where diverse, rapidly changing and often conflicting land use demand exist? This chapter provides a comprehensive coverage of the main issues and perspective of the basic assessment of existing conditions and trends. The approaches adobted in the implementation of the project on reduced impact logging (RIL) technique, biodiversity multidisciplinary landscape assessment (MLA), forest product dependency and adaptive co-management of forests are described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.089

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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