MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400871295 · doi:10.57109/208

Etude comparative sur les causes de dégradation de la forêt Maamora et la forêt Izarène, Maroc

2024· article· fr· W4400871295 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCES · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les deux forêts Maamora et Izarène au Maroc représentes deux étends nationaux qui jouent un rôle socioéconomique et écologique très important.Cependant, ces deux structures subissent une déforestation causée par de multiples facteurs, certains humains et d'autres naturels.L'objectif de notre travail consiste à inventorier les causes derrière cette dégradation.Pour réaliser ce travail nous avons eu recours à un questionnaire composé de 13 items en liaison avec la dégradation et la surexploitation de ces deux forêts.Les résultats de cette enquête montrent une différence significative entre les types et les combinaisons de ces types de dégradation des deux forets.En effet, les enquêtés de la forêt Maamora et ceux de la forêt d'izarène confirment que la population qui habite la forêt participe activement à la dégradation ainsi que les facteurs climatiques et les facteurs liés à la pollution sont les principales causes.Cependant d'autres facteurs s'ajoutent ou combinent avec ces principaux facteurs pour menacer de façon plus difficile la gestion durable de la forêt.Devant cette situation les responsables doivent instaurer des lois et des règlements stricts pour sauver ces deux patrimoines nationaux . . .

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCESSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207