MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408349880 · doi:10.1080/1747423x.2025.2476943

Three decades of woodland cover change in Hwedza, Zimbabwe reveals similar trajectories of woodland loss in communal and resettlement areas

2025· article· en· W4408349880 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kerry Stewart, Samuel Bowers, Nyaradzo Shayanewako, Rose Pritchard, Bill Kinsey, Clemence Zimudzi, Casey M. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Land Use Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKInternational Development Research CentreGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsWoodlandGeographyAgroforestryLand coverLand use, land-use change and forestryLand useEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zimbabwe has pledged to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, which if accomplished may enhance the delivery of ecosystem services. Uncertainty over the extent of woodland cover change and the impact of land redistribution could impede progress. Through comparative analysis of communal and resettlement areas we investigated the patterns, causes and implications of land-cover change in Hwedza, Zimbabwe between 1990 and 2020. Land-cover classification of remotely sensed data reveals that Hwedza has transitioned from a trajectory of net woodland loss to net woodland gain. There is no evidence that resettlement increased deforestation compared to communal areas. Changes in off-farm income, smallholder tobacco farming, and reduced profitability of staple crops were perceived by interviewees to be important factors affecting woodland change. Due to the importance of woodland services such as fuelwood, our findings highlight the need to address the societal implications of policies aiming to reduce deforestation .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Land Use ScienceSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207