MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234033507 · doi:10.1787/reg_glance-2011-33-fr

Forêts, végétation naturelle et empreinte carbone des régions

2012· book-chapter· fr· W4234033507 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePanorama des régions de l'OCDE · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesGeographyForestryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les forêts sont des actifs stratégiques, essentiels au développement durable et à l’atténuation du changement climatique. Clés de voûte de la biodiversité et de l’environnement, elles remplissent aussi des fonctions utiles à la société en procurant du travail et en accueillant des activités de loisirs. Une fraction conséquente du territoire des pays de l’OCDE est couverte de forêts. Cependant, il existe des variations importantes à l’intérieur de ces pays et entre eux. Parmi ceux dans lesquels les écarts sont les plus notables, les États-Unis, le Canada, le Chili, le Mexique et la Norvège possèdent des régions dont la forêt occupe plus de 80 % du territoire (). Dans la catégorie des économies émergentes, le Brésil et la Fédération de Russie sont dans le même cas. Parallèlement, dans tous ces pays sauf la Norvège, la forêt occupe moins de 10 % de la superficie dans plusieurs régions. Compte tenu de ces grandes différences régionales, il est très important de mettre en place des politiques de conservation de la forêt coordonnées à l’échelle nationale, régionale et locale.

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)0.000
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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePanorama des régions de l'OCDESame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207