MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390364453 · doi:10.3917/ag.671.0199

Paquet S. Le paysage façonné. Les territoires postindustriels, l’art et l’usage Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 2009, 235 p.

2010· article· fr· W4390364453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stéphane Héritier

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Géographie · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article évalue les fondements de la compétitivité de la riziculture thaïlandaise. L’analyse montre que la capacité des exploitations à affronter la concurrence du marché international est largement gouvernée par leur dotation en ressources (terre, eau, crédit), sur laquelle la politique économique n’a pas été sans moyens, ni sans effets. Les interventions publiques à l’échelon tant macro-économique que sectoriel ont fortement agi sur la rentabilité de la riziculture, sur les mouvements de main-d’œuvre et de capitaux qui ont été à la riziculture ou au contraire l’ont fuie, et sur le rythme auquel les agriculteurs ont adopté de nouvelles techniques. En particulier, la répartition inégale des investissements de l’État dans les régions a aboutit à une distribution hétérogène des biens publics tels que les infrastructures hydrauliques, la densité du réseau routier et ferroviaire, les services financiers. L’existence et la qualité de ces biens ont très largement conditionné l’éventail des choix possibles de combinaison de facteurs de production qui a, à son tour, pesé sur la compétitivité du riz thaïlandais.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de GéographieSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207