La forêt dans les territoires miniers du Cameroun oriental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La confrontation spatiale entre des enjeux miniers et la préservation des forêts alimente des controverses dans le Cameroun oriental. Comment le regard sur les mines permet-il de comprendre le lien forêts-communautés ? À partir des théories des parties prenantes et des communs, ainsi que de l’approche de la political ecology , nous analysons les déterminants des controverses autour des forêts en contexte d’exploitation minière dans le Cameroun oriental. Les résultats révèlent que les controverses entre enjeux miniers et forestiers viennent de ce que l’exploitation minière s’additionne à celle des forêts. Le développement peu contrôlé des activités minières entraîne la destruction des ressources forestières sans induire en retour des retombées sociales pour les communautés. Avec l’appui de la société civile, les contestations des populations se multiplient, mettant en cause une gouvernance minière empreinte de corruption, peu à l’écoute des intérêts des communautés et peu propice au développement local durable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".