MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402842411 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2024.8.004

The relationship between forest cover loss and annual rainfall in the departments of Peru, 2013-2022

2024· article· en· W4402842411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heidy Yanie Suárez Barbarón, Deyci Elizabeth Torres Ildefonso, Dante Manuel García Jimenez

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnvironmental and Ecological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)Forest coverGeographyForestryEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryPhysical geographyEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest masses participate in the hydrological cycle and precipitation patterns. Therefore, the loss of these forest masses has significant implications for atmosphere-surface dynamics. The objective of this article is to determine the influence of forest cover loss on annual rainfall in the departments of Peru during the period 2013-2022. The methodology was quantitative, longitudinal non-experimental design, with panel data and a random-effects model was estimated. The results reveal a positive and statistically significant relationship between tree cover loss and total annual precipitation, specifically, a 1% increase in deforestation is related to an average increase of 0.186% in annual rainfall. The findings contrast with most previous evidence documenting reductions in precipitation due to deforestation, however, they are consistent with some studies. The research concluded that there is a positive relationship between the loss of forest cover and annual rainfall in the departments of Peru during the period studied.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicEnvironmental and Ecological StudiesFrench-language works237,207