Perception of ecosystem services by peri-urban farmers in São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The managements adopted in agroecosystems may interfere positively or negatively in the different ecosystem services (ES). Understanding the perception of ES and its importance is very relevant for family farming public policies, in accordance with practices that can mitigate the effects of climate change and create resilience for agroecosystems, with environmental gains for the entire society. With increased understanding in this sense, it is possible to improve the management of the agroecosystem and increase the degree of positivity of interferences in the ES. The objective of this work is to analyze the perception of ES by farmers located in peri-urban areas. The study was carried out in the Comuna da Terra Irmã Alberta, a pre-settlement established in the capital of São Paulo State, with participative observation and application of semi-structured interviews with key informants. The most perceived ES were those related to ecosystem support functions and culture, the most mentioned being: “nursery”, “cultural identity”, “food”, “sound regulation”, “aesthetic appreciation” and “air quality”. Sociocultural aspects and the spatial context in which they are inserted influenced the perception of ecosystem services. The presence of agroforestry backyards was the most prominent factor influencing the perception of SE.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".